Intel or AMD? Click here if that is your question!

[Jaggannath]

And that's when you post this link

[rocke501]

i agree the thread is a good idea

[fedz]

I think that someone should sticky a AMD vs. Intel and NVidia vs. ATi poll
13 AMD-Intel polls (5 closed!!)
7 ATI-NVidia polls (none closed)

I looked through a few of the closed polls and found this gem, from our 5000+ system master computer builder:

Originally Posted by HAL9000 the next generation is the Prescott (Pentium 5)

Shame on him!! Anyone got any more funny/weird quotes??

fedz

P.S. Are the 500 series now officially Pentium 5's? They could just have called them 400's...

[Panama Red]

Originally Posted by fedz I think that someone should sticky a AMD vs. Intel and NVidia vs. ATi poll 13 AMD-Intel polls (5 closed!!) 7 ATI-NVidia polls (none closed) I looked through a few of the closed polls and found this gem, from our 5000+ system master computer builder: Shame on him!! Anyone got any more funny/weird quotes?? fedz P.S. Are the 500 series now officially Pentium 5's? They could just have called them 400's...

At the time Hal posted that, Intel had not given names to it's upcoming lines of processors. Common assumption was they would follow the Pentium numbering system and call it Pentium 5. Obviously that didn't happen.

The reason poll threads are discouraged and often closed on the subjects you mention is the inevitable flamming that starts. Some folks get real passionate about their preferred brands. Bashing/flaming brings out the club!

[fedz]

Hey, tbh I would have made the same mistake. We're always wiser with hindsight!
Is there such thing as a poll w/out comments? 'twud be a good idea methinks...
Anyone know about the 500 series (see my post above)??
More funny quotes welcome

fedz

[eltoroh]

so which one is better?

heh

[Panama Red]

Originally Posted by eltoroh so which one is better? heh

If you're asking that question, you didn't read this thread very well! Go back to the beginning and read the first 4 posts. You'll better understand why this thread was started and why it was stickied. We really don't want to promote "which one is better?" conversations. And if anyone does answer his question directly, I'm gonna delete it!

[kram 2.0]

Because of the increasing number of new builders wondering on and off the CPU brand area, I felt the urgent need to bring this thread back up...I've been seeing a lot of "have you considered AMD?" or "AMD's 64 processor is far better IMO"...ack! So hence this post to try to elevate this to the top of the sticky pile


kram

[icallmedan]

Yes indeed...this should be placed back at the top every once in a while...when the threads get heavy.

[kram 2.0]

This thread really should be a sticky of the stick thread - stay at the top. *bump*

kram

[vödka]

I thought the next line of Intel CPUs was supposed to be the "Itanium" (not sure of correct spelling) Was this a myth or did they come out and fall off...? Is the next Intel CPU supposed to be 64bit? I would think so...

[fedz]

Itaniums were supposed to be the 64-bit Xeon replacement. Take a look at
www.intel.com
for more info

fedz

[i486]

The itaniums where out for a while now. They are mostly used in servers.

[fedz]

Here:
http://www.intel.com/business/bss/pr...rver/itanium2/
I think it's mainly been a company and paper release, not to the general consumer

fedz

[kram 2.0]

Here is a quote from Tom's Hardware about the current Intel P4 EE vs. AMD Athlon 64 FX chips.

Originally Posted by Tom The balance of power between AMD and Intel will not change all that much because of a 200 MHz clock speed increase. Yet, if the benchmark results of the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition were combined with those of the Pentium 4 570, Intel would score at the top of a majority of our categories. In a direct comparison, it becomes apparent that the new P4 and the Athlon 64 FX-55 run neck-and-neck. Just as has been the case so many times before, it comes down to personal preference: what is your CPU meant to do?

All the more reason to choose over which YOU think it better. Remember that although Intel Processors have a higher speed, doesn't mean they are faster - pipelining needs to be considered. Same goes for 64-bit extension.
AMD Athlon 64 makes no difference in performance just because it is a 64-bit processor. The only time the 64-bit will come in handy is far far in the future when Windows releases its 64-bit OS sometime in the future.


kram

[ric449]

You missed a major part:

If games are your main interest, AMD is still impossible to beat. However, the more you move into the professional area with applications such as A/V encoding or rendering, the more attractive the P4 will be. Increased support for the SSE3 instruction set will only add on top of Intel's advantage here; this is an area that still needs to be addressed by AMD.

If its a gamer, then AMD is your best bet. Professional apps on the other hand are Intel's turf.

[TwoRails]

Originally Posted by kram8806 Here is a quote from Tom's Hardware about the current Intel P4 EE vs. AMD Athlon 64 FX chips.All the more reason to choose over which YOU think it better. Remember that although Intel Processors have a higher speed, doesn't mean they are faster - pipelining needs to be considered. Same goes for 64-bit extension. AMD Athlon 64 makes no difference in performance just because it is a 64-bit processor. The only time the 64-bit will come in handy is far far in the future when Windows releases its 64-bit OS sometime in the future. kram

Nice post kram, but I prefer Maximum PC's opinion over Tom's, and a lot of folks think they (Maximum PC) are more unbiased:

Unshackled from registered RAM and packing 200MHz more than the FX-53, the Athlon 64 FX-55 simply wailed on the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition in our tests and earns our championship belt with a near-unanimous decision.

it took 15 out of 19 benchmark scores, and

Overall, this was such a clear win for the Athlon 64 FX-55 that there is no aruging our decision. The Athlon 64 FX is the champ.

[kram 2.0]

To me, it was a question of loyalty and what was going on at the time. Far back when the Intel CPUs were reaching the gig and AMD had their 700Mhz (1000+) Processors out, I was forced to make a decision - back then, I wasn't as one sided as I was now (except for the fact that my Mac wasn't playing the games...had to go Windows ). Heat has traditionally been the issue with AMD processors (until very recently) and that has what gotten me to Intel (Pentium III) - and I kept it that way. Why switch from something that already works? It never let me down - I presume it will keep working as it is. This post is also meant to bump this thread up to the top due to the recent debate over Intel and AMD processors when I rendered revisiting this thread to be necessary.

kram

[fedz]

To be honest, it is impossible to form an accurate view without trying everything. Very few games nowadays are CPU limited, so the CPU is not as important as the GPU for gamers, but for applications it is more important. Even though AMD have a performance lead, unfortunately they have that lead in games and *mainly* in non-cpu limited software. There comes the question - in effect intel and amd will deliver equivalent REAL LIFE performance provided that you have a decent graphics card. When people spend around $1000 for a new CPU you can bet that they've spent a decent amount on the graphics card too.

When I still didn't know about computers, I used to think 'Oh look, Dell/Compaq/Siemens/Gateway use Intel and other *worse* companies like Tiny and MESH use AMD. That must mean that intels are better in a way. There's no arguing that the P4's were good CPU's. The 2.8c was, in fact, better than a lot of the equivalent Athlon XP offerings, and offered throttling and great overclockability. I've been swung by the new 939's though. They're priced the same as the intels, but man is that a fine memory controller they've got there
...not to forget that the latest are built using that famed 90nm process[/overclockability]

I'd be interested to see what both have to offer now in the form of dual-core processing. It certainly looks promising, and Intel definitely have more $$$ behind their research department than AMD does, but will that matter? Intel injected a whole load of money into the pressies, but they were a relative flop...

fedz

[Spade713]

Im using a pentium 3.0E HT processor and it is running beautifully. Faster than i could ask for. As for 64 bit, is it true that windows only runs the processor at 32 bit?


I had a thunderbird (hey cmon this was really along time ago) and it was giving me some problems but i made it through. THese guys are the major competiters

[fedz]

Yeah, but there is a 64 bit windows

fedz

[TwoRails]

Not to mention that it's still a screamer running 32 bit apps.

[kram 2.0]

There is no reason to go 64-bit just because of 64-bit if there is no 64-bit programs or operating systems that run it. AMD Athlon 64 is good not because of the its 64-bit full-FSB extension, but because of its WinXP 32-bit performance. In that sense, Intel isn't behind - their 32-bit processors are also great.

kram

[palloco]

Originally Posted by Tom's Hardware In terms of performance, AMD processors remain a step ahead of Intel models

http://www.tomshardware.com/motherbo...et_939-01.html

[kram 2.0]

Originally Posted by palloco http://www.tomshardware.com/motherbo...et_939-01.html

The point of this thread is to cool off these Intel vs. AMD threads - not to decide which is better for which there is no objective answer. Tom does also mention that preference is a huge factor - a Mercedes fan won't go BMW overnight. Neither would I.

kram

[TwoRails]

What the funny part is, at least to me, is this is all deja vu all over again. Heard the same stuff about 8 bit and 16 bit. I even heard good arguements about why to Not get rid of 8 inch floppies, too. It's also along the same lines of when most people thought that a 486 machine was ludicrous.

Folks, 64 bit is here to stay. 8 bit is dead, 16 bit is dying, and 32 bit has peaked and is slowly sliding down on the back end of the glory days.

[ric449]

64 bit is definately here to stay, no question. But the real question is when? 32 bit software is way to far spread to disappear in a few years, same with 32 bit processors, too widespread. The transition from 16 bit to 32 bit took a while, but remember a lot less people owned computers back then. Now with nearly everyone in the western world owning one, the transition from 32 bit to 64 bit is definately going to take a long time. Thats why I still consider 64 bit technology pointless. Its good AMD are building it into their processors, since if you want an AMD processor chances are you will get a 64 bit one, speeding up the transition. Intel are on the way too.

*EDIT* Sorry, let me change pointless to unneeded. 64 bit isn't pointless, it increases performance. But it isn't a point to justify buying a 64 bit processor.

[TwoRails]

I can appreciate what you’re saying, but it really does reinforce my point. When shopping for my second store bought computer (and my last, as I’ve been building ever since), I looked at the brand new unit, the original IBM PC, among others. The “others” were 4 bit and the new IBM PCs were 8 bit.

Guess what? The people selling the 4 bit machines said the same thing, that the 8088 based 8 bit PC was a waste of power, not needed, and there was no justification in buying one. If everyone had believed that, we would not have had the PC “revolution.” Where would we be now?

There is very little, if any, difference between then and now. The “revolution” is alive and ongoing. I prefer to be forward looking and not to be static or stagnant. In fact, I can’t wait for the 128 bit units to come out!

[ric449]

Yes, the revolution will happen, 64 bit will undoubtably take over. But my point is time. I'm just trying to say there is no need to rush out and buy a 64 bit processor.

[fedz]

You have to face the fact that every revolution stagnates at some point. AMD and Intel have already hit a roadblock, and are going on to dual core. So are the graphics card makers (Gigabyte is negociating with Nvidia about dual core technology).

fedz