Intel or AMD

[kalapat]

What would you recommend for a 1st time builder?

Thanks,
Kalapat

[HAL9000]

I added an "Either" choice as neither one is any more difficult to build. What is more important is choosing quality parts. The right choice of motherboard, quality RAM, power supply, etc, will assure a trouble free system that will give you plenty of hassle free enjoyment. I'm an Intel person, so of course I'm going to suggest an Intel system. AMD builders will have the same reaction and suggest an AMD system.

[NickLuto]

I say do a little bit of research and decide for yourself. You are the one that's going to be using it I was an Intel fan turned AMD fan. I like both of them but since im a ghetto little 16 year old, i might as well go for the cheaper of the two AMD. Since AMD XP 1900+ cpu is comparable to a Intel P4 2.0ghz (i still say that the 2.0Ghz has the edge somewhat) from the benchmarks, I cannot really vouch until I get mine built. By the way. Does anyone recommend any good AMD dealers with good prices, customer service, and delivery? Ive been looking at resellerratings.com but those people just want to complain about bad experiences. Anyone here actually find a really good company? Im looking for XP 1900+ chip. Graci...

Nick

[kalapat]

Thanks Hal. Is one (AMD or Intel) more problematic than the other? I've heard some horror stories about the AMD processors--maybe just hear-say?? I'm sure each has it's own pros and cons.

Thanks again,
Kalapat

[mc2phat]

NickLuto,

www.mwave.com
www.newegg.com

I prefer mwave; I've bought thousands worth of components from them, every warranty is honored; great cust. svc. I started ordering most of my cases from newegg, I've had no problems and there are many on this forum that buy from and highly recommend newegg.

HTH

[DrZaius]

Hi kalapat,

I agree with HAL, there are much more important decisions than processor choice to consider when building a first system, such as the motherboard. I like AMD, but either processor will work fine. Currently I am recommending the Athlon XP processor (any speed) with DDR memory.

[HAL9000]

The only reasons that I myself don't "do AMD" are;

1) heat and either no, or little thermal protection.

2) lack of a good chipset as I don't do VIA either.

Personally, I still think it's unfair to compare a 1900+ to a 2.0Ghz P4. AMD themselves are saying "1900+" or comparable to just above a P4 1.9Ghz. Benchmarks can be somewhat misleading. There are benchmarks showing a P4 1.5Ghz stomping on a 1900+. They are both good processors, I just prefer Intel for my reasons above.

[Alfie]

With either system,research is the key.
If you put an P4 on a cheap mobo and cheapest memory,misconfigure the system and you'll have problems!
Same goes with AMD.
Both cpus are excellent.
The problems stem not from the cpus,but rather from the sub-structure and builder/user errors.
Look around and ask what others reccomend as far as motherboards,memory,video and OS.
Personally,I lean towards Epox motherboards,Asus would be my second choice,but many are leaning towards Soyo.Abit is also an excellent board.
Memory should be purchased from Crucial,Mushkin or Memman.
These 3 companies always sell good stuff and back what they sell.
Video is open for debate,as it really comes down to what you plan to do with your system.
ATI,N'vidia,Kyro II make the best chipsets for 3d applications.
Matrox is probably best for business applications and high resolution graphics with okay 3d gaming capabilities.
The OS that should be considered for home use is WindowsXP,it offers full support for both cpus and when used with the NTFS file system is by far the most stable of all Window's OS.
With AMD's cpus cooling is an issue,it's important to go with a quality heatsink and fan,with either system another area not to comprimise on is the power supply,buy approved power supplies(ones that have already been tested and are reccommended.)
Stay away from Deer/Austin power supplies.(Although some of the Deer power supplies are on the AMD approved list,they tend to be downright dangerous!)
Good luck with whatever you decide on.

[Christoph]

Both cpu-ways will be a good choice for a first-time builder. It's the experience you have to get. If you go witj\h AMD - make sure good cooling is in place!

I personally prefer AMD. It's not only that I own stock in this company - I don't like a Intel Monopoly. It's better to have a choice - now AMD has a competetive product - good for us as customers.

Christoph

[Colonel Sanders]

I love AMD (partially because I lack $$$), and I don't think there is anything more difficult about AMD than Intell, so a newbie should go for the cheaper and my fav. AMD, besides, IMOHO the P4 isn't ahead of the AMD.

Logan

[HAL9000]

YAWN, here we go again, AMD is so much cheaper than Intel. Here is what I posted in another thead.

Originally posted by HAL9000 OK, here is what I have in CDN funds from one supplier. It's not the absolute best pricing I can find, but I don't feel like jumping all over all night AMD 1900+ $440 P4 1.9 $471 AMD 1800+ $366 P4 1.8 $378 P4 2.0 yes, out to lunch at $702, when the XP 2000+ comes, it will come down to a more reasonable level. 512Mb PC-133 SDRAM $106 512Mb PC-2100 DDR $212 2x256Mb RDRAM for a total of 512Mb $240. In Canadian funds, the closest I get between two systems with the highest specs is the 1800+ and the P4 1.8. Going with the same case, 300w approved power supplies, 512Mb DDR/RDRAM the Intel is a total of $40CDN more.

Now I agree, this may be a regional thing, but as far as US and Canada goes, it should all be in the same ballpark. I can pretty well assure you that if you find a cheaper US price on the AMD as posted above, I can probably find a cheaper Intel as well. What it comes down to in US funds is about $25. Come on, $25 When you talking about spending approximately $1000USD is the best we can do for an arguement that one should buy this over that? You "lack" $25??? It was a good arguement a couple years ago when you could easily save a couple hundred dollars, but catch up with the times.... $25?????

[GangstaAngel]

I find AMD machines better than Intel machines. I have talked to many people in the past couple of weeks taht have bought p4 machines, and they regret it. Also, as said before, price is a mjor thing. I mean how cocky can Intel get? While in a press conference, Intel was asked why their processors cost so much money. They simply replied saying, "Because we're Intel!" I said BS. Intel Deez! The Athlon XP chips arwe great procs. I happen to love them. The only chip from Intel I would ever buy over an XP is the Itanium, and I don't think anyone in here is going to buy that. So AMD ismy preference.

[HAL9000]

Well, each has it's application. What were those P4 users using it for and did they go for cheap and get SDRAM boards when they should have gone RDRAM. I can easily intro you to a company that was recommended AMD's for their business. Well, they use Autocad and there is a known issue with lags in Autocad. The AMD's kick the Intels around for video editing (OK, no comments from the Mac guys, we know it will take on the AMD yet). When it comes to gaming, they both perform great. OK, you can show 210 frames with one and only 180 with another, maybe it might bog in some heavy fragging to 100, but come on, your eye sees 30.

[GangstaAngel]

you are right about that. About everythign you said, you are correct. But no matter what, AMD is cheaper. Also they were using it for Studio Max and Web Design. About the game thing. It makes no sense where the industry is heading making it so fast. I mean look at the TI card and the Radeon cards. Are they crazy? My eyes canonly see up to 45 frames a second and they're in the hundreds.

[Cricket]

For a first time builder my thoughts would be to consider "re-building" an existing ("old") system first to get used to what's involved. That way, if something goes wrong and a part gets damaged, no big deal. I think it's a lot more stressful to build a system with brand new (and expensive) parts than to build a system with used parts. Sure, it's not as glamorous and doesn't give you a system that you can brag about...but you gain so much more in knowledge and experience. Then with that knowledge and experience you can go ahead and build your dream machine knowing that you know what you're doing and that your system will come out fine.

I feel preparation is very important and that "doing your homework" will reduce the amount of problems before hand.

Of course, reading the "Build Your Own PC" should be one of the first things a novice does before he starts his build: http://www.pcmech.com/byopc/index.htm

Cricket

[Colonel Sanders]

HAL, when your near broke like me, that $25 adds up. What about motherboards/RAM?

DDR PC 2100 256MB = $46, RDRAM 256MB =$76, but when you go up to the 512MB, the price goes to DDR $107, RDRAM = $166.

Motherboards...

AMD Athlon XP = $50
P4 1.7GHz = $75

Of course those prices don't mean much, and they are from pricewatch.com

BTW, CPUs

AMD XP 1900 = $247 P4 2.0 = $407, P4 1.9 = $263(since an XP 1900 has ben said = or > than P4 2.0) AMD XP 1800 = $183, P4 1.8 = $212.

So, sure the difference is pretty small, keep in mind the XP rateing system has it's numbers a little low... when you add up all those prices, pricewatch.com says you can save a nice amount of money with an AMD setup.

Logan

[Colonel Sanders]

Cricket, you just gave me an idea what newbies should do...take a 486 nice and running, tear(uh pull) everything out of the case. Put everything in safe place then wait a few days/weeks or however long so you can forget what it should look like. Then put it back in and see if it works. If it doesn't, visit a place with internet access(take that back, who would be surfing the internet on a 486?) and see what they can buy off of eBay for about $50 to fix the old PC(unless of course someone here would want to donate parts...).

Logan

[RayH]

Assuming you do everything else right, for a first time builder, I'd recommend either an Intel using an Intel chipset. If P4, also with RDRAM. If P3, SDRAM. Or, AMD with AMD or SIS chipset, with DDR RAM! Don't mess with VIA even if you become a third or fourth time builder!

[morriswindgate]

YEEEEEEEEE! IT'S THE MOTHERBOARD NOT THE PROCESSOR YOU USE! Using AMD or Intel CPU is a matter of choice and price only.

[alber]

i have been running amd cpu's since my first 'build' which was a 486dx4/133, which 'rocked' in it's hay day, and i thought a 486dx2/66 rocked...since then it has been a k6-2/450 a 700 and now a 1.4 regular(not xp/+) i have not had any problems with any of them at all, or at least any i can actually BLAME on the processor itself, but i think it might be harder to distinguish, between processor alone problems vs. some other hardware/software/os problem..but that's my opinion...on the other hand, at work i use a compaq(ugh) 333 intel machine and i have downloaded everything under the sun(if anyone is missing the internet, it's on my machine at work...lol) because we are an international company and get some really 'off the wall' file types. (ie. multi-page tif) one file that contains mutliple pages, similar to a .doc or a .pdf...anyway, i haven't had any problems per se with that machine either, so all i can say in the end of this looooooooong post is if you really feel like spending the extra cash on intel, go for it, otherwise amd is your second(frugal) choice...good luck.

regards.

[DrZaius]

We all know Coke's the best.

I've ran a few gaming benchmarks while drinking Pepsi and I just didn't see the same frag rates as when on a Coke caffeine rush. Also, most businesses pefer to stock Coke vending machines as well.

Plus you can get Coke bottles for $0.05 cheaper than Pepsi at the vending machines, when will their prices go down?!

And we all know how fast Pepsi can get warm and flat because of the horrible thermal aluminum can protection.

Sure, there are some who go for the great Coke taste but combine it with plain old chips and severly limit the flavor bandwidth. Instead they should spend more and go with the zesty porkrinds for best performance.

Silly 'aint it?

As long is it isn't a Cyrix or PC Chips, it doesn't matter. Worry about the motherboard, the video card, the OS and drivers instead.

[HAL9000]

Whenever I price out a system, AMD or Intel, they are usually within that $25USD price range difference and I am only talking about one distributor so that I can purchase a built system with a 3 year warranty. There are even occasions where I can get the Intel cheaper than the AMD.

I truely find it hard to believe that anyone is going to worry about $25 on $1000. That's like saying that you are going to make a decision between two houses that are priced at $100,000 and $97,500. You are going to totally exclude the one house just because of the price? Not likely.

AND COKE GOES FLAT WAAAAAAAAAAY BEFORE PEPSI!

[pcoopers]

I'm no computer expert, so I read a lot before I ever built anything.

1 article, think was in PC mechanics, weighed heavily in deciding me to AMD.

In effect, the author led me to believe that while Intel usually smokes AMD on benchmarks, AMD has a wider "pipeline" which allows the processor to communicate with apps and hardware more quickly. Therefore, everyday realworld apps seem to run faster than they will on the same speed Intel. Don't take that to the bank, til you check with other more experienced builders.

The $25 difference on a $2000 machine is a minor factor, but it is a factor.

Finally, AMD gains a measure of my loyalty by preventing Intel from being a monopoly. Microsnot needs the same sort of competition! Without AMD, all of our processors may well be reporting our identities and activities to some central agency by now. The P3 identifier thing was really a sucky idea!

[padawan]

I say AMD is slightly more difficult to build, only because of the heat and somewhat fragile core. Other than that, they are both damn good chips. As for VIA being junk, I think Intel has had their share of crap chipset, too. The new KT266A is rock solid and fast, using cheap DDR. Research, read, price some stuff, then read some more. Read several reviews from many different sites, then make the choice. See my sig for my choices

[Computer Hobbyist]

I voted either before I read HAL's first post. He is right on. My last two systems were AMD and my next is going to have Intel inside.

Cricket, I have learned a lesson trying to upgrade an old 486. "You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear." I am now convinced that the old 486 I last upgraded exhibited all the problems with heat, and uneven power, that we have all come to expect from the AT layout. My motherboard did not survive.

I am now convinced that a first time builder should start with a good ATX case and a good PS. If you don't want to risk a lot in the beginning simply select components accordingly. Do your research, buy a MOBO from a good manufacturer for something between $75 and $120 and install an appropriate Duron or Celeron. Not a lot of money at risk with either but, unless your a gamer, you will get good service.

CH

[sdkramer]

AMD all the way

no expensive RAMBUS memory, (Yeah I know the new chipset and all)
cheaper by far
XP's kick the P4 arse
P4's (halt) halt (halt) every (halt) other (halt) cycle (halt) when (halt) hot.
Tyan Dualie mobo's make Dual AMD machines very good.
Just don't buy any cheapo boards (true for either chip) and you are good to go.

[HAL9000]

Originally posted by sdkramer AMD all the way P4's (halt) halt (halt) every (halt) other (halt) cycle (halt) when (halt) hot.

Now that you think about it, yea, I would rather have a processor that goes up in smoke than one that protects itself. I'm sure to save money that way

The P4's run less than 40'C under a full load with the heat sink that comes with the retail box processor. What does an AMD run, seems to me I see plenty of posts in the 60-70'C range

I think people are really losing sight of what this question is all about. It's asking, which is better for a first time builder? Not which you believe to be a better system. Many of you have posted your beliefs on why you feel the AMD/Intel is a better chip, but so far only Padawan has stated that the AMD is a little harder due to heat issues.

[morriswindgate]

AMD or Intel? It doesn't matter. As a matter of fact, to me, the biggest mistake that I see on this forum is, people select a processor (XP1900 or P4) and then select everything else. The most important decision when building a computer is the selection of the motherboard. And for this you need to read, read and read. Then select the Ram, Video Card, sound card, hard drive, CD-RW, and then with what is left in your budget get the CPU. It may not be the fastest rate one available but it will perform better than the fastest one installed on a cheap board with small amount of ram, and a video card best used in an office workstation.
Look over the posts on this forum and you will see a lot of problems from using cheap boards, generic ram, cheap video cards, cheap cases, and generic power supplies. But at the same time they will have the fastest cpu going.
Before I build a computer, ( and in the last three weeks I have built 2 duron systems and 1 XP system) I read everything I can about the boards, I visit Manufactures websites and read the FAQs and then look at the BIOS updates to see what problems they are fixing.

[dj4uk]

I completely agree with morriswindgate.

There is no point having a quick processor AMD or Intel if the mobo makes the system unstable.

If you have a good mobo then either will run freaking fast.

I myself have a AMD Duron 850MHz but only due to the future upgrade possiblities that my mobo gives me (I stay a step behind so I save some money but my present board allows me to upgrade to Athlon XP 1900+ when the price is right).

If there were some comparable boards to this when I bought it I may have bought Intel.

This Intel/AMD debate is getting boring.

[glc]

Folks - this may put this issue into perspective. We used to build our own computers up for customers, but carrying the warranty on them was getting to be a pain. Along came a quality builder, who builds them for less than we pay for the parts. Over the past couple of years, we have seen all kinds of components offered - at the beginning they offered AMD for the "entry-level" systems - K6-2's on Shuttle, Epox, and Asus boards. The Intels were also on Shuttle, Epox, and Asus. Well - as things evolved, their offerings kept changing, and we asked why. They told us that they were rigidly following the reliability statistics and planned on only building with components that were RELIABLE, thereby reducing THEIR warranty costs.

Guess what we are offered now? Here is the ENTIRE catalog:

Entry level: Intel Celeron II or P3 on MSI Via PLE133 boards

Mid level: P4-478 on genuine Intel D845 boards with sdram

Top end: P4-478 on genuine Intel D850 boards with rdram

Dual P3 on MSI Via 694 boards

They have completely discontinued AMD builds, citing insufficient reliability to make it worth it considering the close prices between AMD and Intel now. Just before they discontinued AMD, the price difference between a Duron 800 and a Celeron 800 system was a whopping $6.

So - here is my 2 cents to answer the original question:

Build Intel on Intel. Sorry, AMD fans, from my professional standpoint they just aren't stable enough. I know that I have been out on quite a few warranty issues (for which the builder reimburses us) on the AMD systems we have sold - bad processors, bad motherboards. The ONLY Intel system we have done warranty work on has been for a broken power button.

Disclaimer - your mileage may vary, I will still custom build AMD on request myself but I choose components VERY carefully.