Intel or AMD

[doughbake]

I think that an Intel P3 Processor would be a good choice for a first time builder.It's reasonably cheap at the moment and is a good reliable chip.But if its high end performance that they are after then the AMD series is the only choice for price and performance.

doughbake

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!.

[RJ]

I stay with Intel. They've always been reliable processors with reliable chipsets.
Since anything from AMD before Athlon was crap and I actually have seen those K6 CPUs I was real glad to have an Intel.
Besides that the CPU was used for nearly all operations, including graphic calculating etc.
First generation 3D graphic cards weren't as powerful and as supported as today's cards.

And now: AMD CPUs aren't way ahead of Intel, so I see no reason to go AMD.
More performance ? Well, anything above 30fps is smooth, and btw when it comes to graphics intense applications nowadays it is the GPU that determines the quality and fps of the graphics. The CPU itself isn't involved as much as back to the Pentium times with first generation 3D cards.

RJ

[padawan]

Not to bust on you, RJ, but 30 fps is pretty crappy, IMHO. The reason we all strive for high framerates is headroom. If you are averaging 30 fps in say, Quake 3, that means that you are dipping well below 30 fps at time. If I had to choose a number, I would say aim for 60 fps average, to give yourself headroom for the battles and intense graphical scenes.

True, the CPU is not involved in the graphics as much, but if you want balls to the wall performance, most gamers will lean toward AMD. A well built AMD system is as stable as an Intel system, period. A poor built Intel system will suck just as bad as a poor built AMD system. I get tired of hearing some Intel fans always say "reliability" as the major issue, especially when we are in the company of new computer user, as is the case with this forum. If you build an AMD system with crappy parts it will be unstable. I am sure I could build an Intel system that sucks just as bad. I personally have four systems in my house, three AMD and one Intel. None of them are problems, not one. Why? I used all high-quality parts in all the machines. I even have VIA chipsets, and they have been nothing but reliable. AMD has become the CPU of choice for most home-builders, thus more problems are reported. If you look back a couple of years, I bet you would see many problems with Celerons and P2's, since they were the CPU of choice for the home-built box back then.

Speaking of reliable, when was the last time AMD recalled a CPU? I seem to remember a certain 1.13GHz Pentium being recalled. Maybe Intel had a brief moment of "must get ahead" syndrome, and pushed a part out the door early.

Bottom line, both CPUs are wicked fast, relatively cheap (thanks to AMD's strong competition), and reliable. The only fault of the current crop of AMD processors is they get HOT, but again, a good cooling solution will solve this problem. One look at the P4's cooling solution, and you understand that heat is a problem all the CPU manufacturers are dealing with.

[Toaster]

Here we go again!!

Well folks, I see clearly whats going on here.
Those that like AMD have never run an Intel and assume all benchmarks are cast in stone. Those that support Intel *HAVE* tried *BOTH* system types.
So, from one end, people speak of something they "assume" to be correct because "their friend said so". Honestly, is someones opinion worth its salts if they speak from someone elses opinions?
Just look at the replies in this thread alone and you see things plain as day.
For those budget minded super heroes that "think" 25 bucks is a savings when spending 1000 bucks matters, go buy a PC-Cheaps system board if money shakes your tree.
I tend to think peoples can't see the forest because of the trees.
At least folks arn't using the stand-by line of "chipzilla" which burns by butt bigtime. Try saying "chipzilla" while you throw bucks at "gui-zilla".

Now, as most are aware, I am an Intel fan. HOWEVER, I *did* try both sides of the fence. I know Intel CPUs better then most folks realize. I also know that VIA is holding back a usable CPU from AMD. Get VIAs head out of the sand and we might talk again. Till then however, Intel on Intel.
AMD, get some usable thermal protection. I don't need a overheated CPU trashing both CPU *and* system board.
Rip the heatsink off an Intel and it simply freezes. Rip the heatsink off a P4 and it keeps running but more slowly. Rip the heatsink off an AMD....well...you will be buying AT LEAST a replacement CPU and PROBABLY a system board.

VIA? Hey folks, the news is out, VIA chipsets underutilize the PCI bus 25% then that of Intel chipsets. So now reduced PCI throughput as well.
Geee...I want an AMD on a VIA..NOT!

You AMD folks are playing against the house. This gamble RARELY pays off.


Bottom line:
If you have never used the "other" CPU, say-so. Don't speak from benchmarks.
Don't speak from someone elses opinion.

Jeezuz, whats better, an apple or an orange?

[HAL9000]

Originally posted by Toaster Jeezuz, whats better, an apple or an orange?

Pizza and beer

[jessho]

I want to add something to this discussion. If you were building a system for your grandmother and wanted to guarantee the least amount of hardware problems, would you choose Intel or AMD?

[HAL9000]

Intel chip on an Intel chipset board. Since it would be for grandma and I don't think she would be into overclocking, I would even go as far as to use an Intel brand motherboard.

[MaidenEmpire]

For a 1st time builder i would recormend:

AMD

Because they are low cost and high proformance. Cooling is a big downer tho, but for a few extra $ u can keep a AMD running soomthly at a nice temperature.

Amd is the best, i say!

[padawan]

Toaster, if we aren't to use benchmarks, what are we to use? I have used both, at work and home, and I enjoy my AMD systems more. If you look at any given website, AMD will beat Intel in nearly every benchmark, period. So now Intel supporters want us to throw out benchmarks? Rubbish. I admit that AMD's thermal protection sucks, but in three years of using AMD products I have never ruined a single CPU.

Those that like AMD have never run an Intel and assume all benchmarks are cast in stone.

What a generalized statement this is, making it seems as if all AMD users are idiots that jump on a bandwagon. Somehow I don't think Kyle at HardOCP, Anand, Tom, Sharkey, or any other major website webmaster has never used Intel, yet they all acknowledge AMD's performance advantage. Like I said, if you want balls to the wall speed, get an AMD. It's like building a performance car, there are some special considerations, but it is faster. Benchmarks don't lie. How do you propose we compare the CPUs if we can't use benchmarks? Oh wait, we can use the Intel Internet Speed Benchmark, right? Because getting a P3 will speed up your Internet experience, or so Intel has tried to make us believe.

Those that support Intel *HAVE* tried *BOTH* system types.

Ok, seriously, how many of you Intel guys have an AMD system in your house, right now? What parts are in it? Did you buy good, quality parts, or is it some junk that you got for free or at a computer show? Did you research the parts before you bought them?

VIA? Hey folks, the news is out, VIA chipsets underutilize the PCI bus 25% then that of Intel chipsets. So now reduced PCI throughput as well.

Where did you get this information? Show me some tests to run, and we can compare numbers.

You AMD folks are playing against the house. This gamble RARELY pays off.

It seems to pay off for me, and thousands of other people. If you are a gamer, you want AMD. If you are a hobbyist, AMD is your CPU. I would put my AMD system against an equally clocked P4 any day. If AMD sucks soooooooooooo bad, why has nearly every website on the Internet endorsed AMD? For the casual buyer, sure get an Intel, we won't tell.

Bottom line, these days the performance edge is with AMD. If you want the fastest, buy AMD. Finally:

Don't speak from benchmarks.

What? How else do we make a decision? Not everybody here can go buy an AMD system and an Intel system to run side by side. When I buy a video card, I go out and read benchmarks to see what is the fastest. Are you saying that we disregard benchmarks for CPUs? So now how do we decide? Back when the K6 sucked, benchmarks were king. Intel was faster, period, and we all relied on benchmarks. Odd, now that Intel is getting beaten on many benchmarks that benchmarks are now considered unreliable. Again, 1000 websites cannot be wrong. Trust me, AMD nor Intel have paid me one dime, so I have made my choice from experience.

If you like Intel, fine. I like Toyota. We could argue all day about which is better. But to tell people here to diregard benchmarks is extremely irresponsible. I am honest about AMD, it does get hot. But, the rewards are the fastest desktop PC available today. If you don't overclock, odds are you will never even think about the heat with an AMD. How about a quick poll, how many people have had a heatsink fall off....maybe 0.5% of users? In six months, Intel may retake the speed crown, and I will switch sides. My job as a website editor is to test hardware, not make statements based on my personal preferences. For me, and just about every other webmaster in the hobby/gaming scene, AMD is the best. If VIA is holding back, you should be happy. More speed from VIA will only push AMD ahead of Intel further.

Bottom line, back up your claims with something other than your opinion. Benchmarks don't lie.

[Computer Hobbyist]

I have read this thread with amusement. It seems that every week we have a similar debate--Intel v. AMD. Every week the same ground is covered. Every week the same passion is displayed. Every week nothing is settled.

I would remind everybody that we are talking about what should a newbie assemble first. I again say that in this setting the AMD/Intel debate is almost irrelevant. Both make fine CPU's. I think the real question should center on how a first time builder should spend his first build money. I again suggest that the first time builder should keep his first time risks low and build a machine his grandmother would love. He should use good parts. Stability and success should be the goal. Overclocking should be avoided. Some wise old heads have suggested Intel on Intel. I would modify that by saying the first time builder should install a Celeron on an Intel (or possibly an Asus) mobo. If the first time builder decides to go AMD, he should buy a Duron, and install it on a board from a good manufacturer. Soyo, for one, makes a good basic board. (Of course, the first time builder is the guy most likely to screw up the installation of the hs/fan and any Athlon is subject to instant heat death -- so I'd shy away from a Duron for a first build.) The first time builder (like everybody else) should study carefully to make sure the mobo he selects has a quality chipset. Keep the risks low and build for success. He should buy quality cards to complete the project. Of course, a system that is often overlooked is the case/ps. Buy quality and buy for the future. The second or third build should be where a new builder starts experimenting with performance.

That's just my opinion and I might be wrong.

CH

[HAL9000]

OK, but here's what gets to me about AMD users. They all have to act like a plague. You tell me, when was the last post that you saw somebody saying that they were going to build an AMD XP bla bla bla, and Intel users jumped all over them quoting a bunch of garbage. Now do a seach on various forums where somebody is building an Intel, and just like an infection, AMD users start clawing away at him with;

1) It's cheaper, yea, a whopping $20 to $50 on comparable, complete systems. They go off quoting VIA boards on the AMD and top of the line boards for Intel. Try doing just as much research on the Intel.

2) Beats Intel in every benchmark. Yea, I can find some benchmarks showing the Intel kicking butt too, but they are obviously biased and wrong. Well, why aren't the ones supporting AMD wrong. No offense to be taken Scott, but you are obviously AMD biased, so how is an Intel person to believe the benchmakrs are fair. That aside, are the benchmark programs themselves fair. I feel it's fair to benchmark AMD against other AMD and Intel against Intel (and these are the benchmarks that I take into account), but not against each other. It's like benchmarking Ferarri against Yugo. Heck, I can remember magazine ads where even Cyrix beat both AMD and Intel.

3) It's more stable. I guess that's why there are all those AMD servers out there with their patched VIA chipsets performing substandard ATA133 and SCSI transfer rates. I know I'm probably really gonna stir the pot here, but lets do a bit of math here. AMD is shooting for 30% market share, that's fine. There are post after post saying more people build AMD, seems to be proven. But if 30% of users use AMD, and 70% post on tech boards, it could lead to an interesting statistic now couldn't it? ****DISCLAIMER TIME**** yea, I know it's just theory, but when I see the Intel users having the greater market share, but only a rate of 15% on the boards, you gotta wonder. Check out other message boards, you'll get similar numbers.

[/END RANT]

[Computer Hobbyist]

Hal

You haven't got anything to be defensive about. The Intel P4 has far more upside potential than the AMD XP. To compete with the P4's evolution during the 2002, AMD is going to have to introduce a new generation processor. It might not be able to bring that processor into production in time to save itself. The only advantage the XP used to have was the requirement that the P4 use expensive RDRAM. That problem was inadequately addressed by introduction of P4 chipsets that used SDRAM == systems that are very underpowered but allowed Dell and others to sell P4 sytems for $899. The introduction of chipsets enabling the P4 to use DDR-Ram has closed the cost gap caused by the premium paid for RDRAM. At this moment, as opposed to 6 months ago, I have a hard time understanding why any performance fan would buy an XP motherboard.

Before people scream at me, keep in mind I own and use both AMD and Intel computers. I don't have any axe to grind. I am also convinced that AMD's survival is important to the health of the industry. Finally, I don't think there exists much real world software taking advantage of the full potential of either the fastest P4 or the fastest XP. This leads me to conclude that for most of us, the purchase of either is a waste of money.

CH

[Toaster]

Howdy,
Hal, repost that link to the VIA observation of reduced PCI throughput.
I think this might quell them somewhat.
VIA makes (patches) a chipset seemingly anually. I tend to think that Intel pounds on them a bit and they retool for the next chipset.
Oddly, the VIA chipset is a near copy of an Intel chipset, this much has been proven. While I too am thankful for AMD being in the market, I still choose Intel for a myriad of reasons. Intel on Intel is ultra stable. Now, like AMD, Intel made a few "boo-boo's" like the i845 chipset and with it crippled the P4 with SDRAM.
I suggested that folks read this thread top to bottom. In most cases, those that had chosen the AMD route never built of used extensively an Intel based system.
I did use the term "all" incorrectly and out of context.
In this forum, Hal made a post, with links in regard to the VIA chipset and PCI data rates by an independant lab.

For a benchmark to be useful, it must be duplicatable.
At Toms Hardware, he used the P4T-E ASUS board but only occupied 2 of the 4 RDRAM sockets. This disabled the multibanking feature that gives RDRAM the reason for being. Is Toms Hardware Biased? You bet your butt he's Biased!
I'm quite sure you can show me a biased AMD site and I can show you a biased Intel site. Hence the reason for benchmarking to be worthless.
Look at the way Toms Hardware configures each system. Why the difference in parts? I "thought" we were benchmarking? I think not, I think its "advertising".

At any rate, I need 100% stability becasue I do data recovery, design CAD/CAM, and my "adventuring" into silicon. AMD "might" be fine, but not while under VIAs heel.

[HAL9000]

Here it is.

[padawan]

Good points for both sides.

Not to run this debate any longer, because, well, I like Pepsi, and you guys seem like a bunch of Coke drinkers

Anyway, from a gamers point of view, AMD is the system of choice. I don't do the CAD, run servers, etc. From my gaming point of view, and many other hobbyist, AMD is the best solution. There are times when Intel will be better, and times when AMD will be better. All I want is people to acknowledge that AMD is not trash, and even more so, not to convey that image on to impressionable new readers. The P4 is starting to get some support from the community, and the new DDR boards are promising. I have no brand loyalty, I could switch next month, trust me.

Now let me slink back out of here and go unlock some more multipliers on my XP's (last Intel joke, I swear).

[HAL9000]

Originally posted by padawan Not to run this debate any longer, because, well, I like Pepsi, and you guys seem like a bunch of Coke drinkers

Them theres fightin' words. My daddy worked for Pepsi for over 35 years, I don't do AMD orCoke

[padawan]

Ok, this is bad. HAL and I agree that Pepsi is better than Coke. I think the end is near, or something like that. Hey HAL, if I told you they had Coke machines at Intel, would you jump over to AMD out of spite

Here's a new motto. Buy whatever you want. They're both fast, and I love all of them, because I am a geek. Just the fact that we can all argue about this makes us uber-geeks, you guys know that, right?

[HAL9000]

LOL, now that would be a real dilemma wouldn't it

[AlwaysUp]

HAL, did you notice how restrained I am behaving? Logan_85 and I are done fighting the Intel vs AMD thang!

[AlwaysUp]

Padawan, next time you get you butt kicked on an online game....take the time to poll what the other guy has under his fingertips!

[Gintaras]

Pentium II is the best.

[padawan]

AlwaysUp, I think it's called an Aimbot, but I'll check to make sure. Somehow I doubt an Intel CPU makes a person a better gamer, but if that is the case, dammit, I'm switching. No wonder why I sucked bad when I was running that Cyrix box back in '97...

[AlwaysUp]

I like your sense of humor Padawan!

[padawan]

I'm just hoping your name refers to your sleeping habits and not your anatomy.

[AlwaysUp]

I am a rotating shift worker. I work 12 hr shifts. 66% of my "workday" is between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. The other 33% of the time is the other half of the clock. I have been doing this kind of thing for 17 of my 20 years with this company. I sleep an average of 5-6 hours a day. I only WISH it was a part of my anatomy!!!!

[Toaster]

Hello once again,
Maybe in the non too distant future AMD will realize that VIA is holding them back.
Maybe, in that future, AMD will actively support and redefine the chipsets used on their class of CPUs.
Right now however, Intel and AMD are tugging on their own respective ends of the rope with us the users in the middle. On the surface this is good. We the users get faster and faster gear while the CPU makers do battle.
AMD decided to use the "PR" "processor Equivalant" rating instead of a real MHZ figure. I'm guessing that AMD is having some trouble with the 2.0GHZ barrier and thus are resorting to "marketting".
With VIA's heel firmly implanted upon AMD, the chipmaker will have to "make do".
I wouldn't mind toying with an XP but my deep allergic reaction to VIA forces me to stay with "what works for me". AKA:Intel
I don't doubt that AMD makes a capable chip. I don't doubt that AMD in some instances, can out perform a similar clocked Intel. I do however doubt the capability of VIA and hence the reason why I tout the Intel flag in my camp.
While AMD "tries" to come forth with a usable chipset alternative to VIA's, so far, the "maker of the chip" can't yet support their own chip to its full potential.
This bothers me to great extent. "Why" can't AMD better their own processor with a chipset that fully utilizes their CPUs?
That is the mystry.

[whr2206]

I posted intel for a first time builder. With intel you dont have to worry abot a mre expensive h/f, the stock one will do. Also, if yo are a newbie, if you dont get the h/f on the amd cpu right, you could fry it. I know the p4 needs an Intel approved one, but intel takes up less power than amd. Alls I know is that my first build wich was intel, was a piece of cake, but my 2n amd gave me many headaches, needed a better h/f (already had a global win onthere in the first place) then, I needed another psu, beacuase I thought 300w would suffice, but it wasnt amd approved, then via 4 in 1 screwed up some things also. Not being biased, just my experiences, and lack of knowledge of amd, caused me some trouble with amd. SO i say intel for your first build.

[padawan]

Hate to disagree with you again, but AMD can and does on occasion make their own chipsets. The AMD 760 chipset was fast and feature packed, but AMD has said time and again that they do not want to be in the chipset market. Why I don't know, but they can do it if the need arises (like the 760).

[lovitz]

anybody know if VIA will fix the problem with the laggy ATA133?? I'm building a bitchin rig soon and I don't want this to be a problem.


P.S

AMD RULEZ!

[Computer Hobbyist]

Whr2206

You ever feel like your in a conversation with yourself. The "professionals" around here have long since given up even considering the question originally posed.

I agree with you completely. A first time builder is much more likely to be successful building Intel than AMD. It is just easier.

CH