Intel vs AMD (not asking for a fight)

[ric449]

I wrote this article, but I think it's missing something. Also I need to make sure I am not being biased at all. Please take a look:

AMD vs. Intel

This guide is designed to help you decide between AMD and Intel. This question always comes up in chat rooms and forums, and I thought it was time I cleared this up.

First of all you need to ask yourself how experienced you are with computer building. AMD Athlon XP processors have a reputation for burning up because people don’t use thermal paste, or people not attaching the heatsink correctly. Intel doesn’t have this problem, since all their recent processors can throttle back their clock speed when they overheat, or cut themselves off, therefore saving the chip from burning out. But as long as you can apply thermal paste properly, and can follow instructions on how to attach the heatsink (Intel guide here, AMD guide here), you should be fine. Although, since Intel have the added thermal protection, I recommend Intel in this situation.

Also, there is the danger of damaging the processor before you even get the computer is running. This is the risk of cracking the die of the processor (Check definitions section if you don’t know what a die is). With today’s processors, this only happens with AMD. This is because, unlike Intel, AMD choose to have no heat spreader on top of their Athlon XP processors. The heat spreader is a metal cap on top of the processor that covers the entire top of the chip, and is meant to enhance heat loss. It also has the added benefit of protecting the die of the processor from cracking. Again, this is why Intel have my vote for first time builders processors. (With the Athlon 64 variants, AMD have now used a heat spreader like Intel, protecting the die)

The next decision will be your budget. I can’t count the amount of times I have heard “AMD have the best bang for the buck” from AMD worshippers. For some of their processors, this is true, but not always. People who say this usually say Intel is overpriced, and can’t compete with AMD on price. Untrue. If you are talking about people on a budget, then yes, they are right. But for higher end processors, both companies come up around the same.

So far the best bang for the buck processors from each company is the 2500+ from AMD, and the 2.8GHz C Northwood from Intel. Both are great processors, but to tell you the truth the Intel processor out of those two will beat the AMD 2500+ in most cases (And no, I am not an Intel fanboy). This is because the 2.8GHz C has the higher FSB, Hyperthreading technology, and higher speeds than the AMD 2500+. As you know, the AMD doesn’t compete with Intel on clock speed anyway, but from looking at the 2500+ number of the AMD chip you see that the AMD processor roughly compares to a 2.5GHz Pentium 4. Intel usually have higher prices than AMD, but in my opinion Hyperthreading is what adds the extra price (Also the fact that Intel have been going for longer than AMD makes them think that they have the right to charge more ) So this one comes down to you. If you plan on doing a lot of multitasking, go for the Intel with Hyperthreading. If not, then the AMD processor is right for you.

If you are low on money, then AMD is the choice for you, end of story. Intel just have nothing that can keep up with a budget AMD processor. Intel have the Celeron, but the Celeron just cannot compete with Duron processors at all. This is where bang for the buck comes into it, AMD have cheap processors that offer relatively high performance, and usually cheaper than Intel too. That is only true for the budget segment though. On the other hand, if you will never do anything graphics intensive, a Celeron will be just fine.

[trebor]

Just to let you know, that even though the fsb may be faster the chip is not nessasary faster. The amd's do more per clock cycle than the intel does. Thefore the actual ghz speed is not a gauge of how fast the processor runs.

I am not a fan of either. I think that both are great, as I have both.

[ric449]

Yeah, but since the faster FSB is available there is faster interface between memory and processor.

[ric449]

Anymore views on this?

[Alfie]

One must realize the low end AMD cpus are now the XP's,the high end AMD cpus are the 64's,so if you start comparing high end,you should be looking at these cpus,when this is the case,we see AMD's 64 and fx series shed a new light,if fsb should be an argument the 64's boast a 1600 fsb.
With all the instructions and tutorials available on installing a heatsink,I find that argument old,either cpu without a heatsink can be damaged,all new AMD motherboards have built in protection that communicates with the cpu,temp gets beyond the preset thresholods,the computer will shut down.

[Jester]

A good benifit of the AMD is that they keep the price down on intel chips

[Alienware_Dude]

Originally posted by trebor Just to let you know, that even though the fsb may be faster the chip is not nessasary faster. The amd's do more per clock cycle than the intel does. Thefore the actual ghz speed is not a gauge of how fast the processor runs.

It depends on the software. Yes, AMD chips can execute more instructions per cycle, but software that has been compiled to take advantage of the P4's deeper, longer pipeline will, obviously, run faster on the P4. It's really all relative.

[glc]

either cpu without a heatsink can be damaged

Not exactly true. Pentium 4's will shut themselves down with no damage. So will AMD's if the motherboard C.O.P kicks in fast enough.

[morriswindgate]

When it comes right down to the REAL WORLD and not the benchmark world or rumor world, both Intel and AMD are making great products that will do everything that we do on a computer.
CPU speed has gotten to the point that just about any of the available CPUs is overkill in the real world. This is not to say that if you have a three or four year old Intel or AMD that you are set. The newer CPUs from both compnie have built in instructions that enhance the computing operation.
One bit of past that seems to be making a comeback is the heat issue with CPUs and this time it is both AMD and Intel. The prescott is know to have heat issues, which when coupled with the Intel slowdown feature, gives really poor performance and my recent build with an XP3200 has made me realize that there is a shortage of really effiecent HSF units.
I have went through two HSFs that are rated for the 3200 but in reality could not keep the temps down, I am now using a Thermaltake Volcano 11 which works but is loud. SO today I ordered an Areocool HT which at least had a review that showed it worked.

[deathonastick]

(flamebait mode on)

It's easy: If you want a screaming fast game machine go AMD

If you want a real computer that pays for it's keep go Intel.

(flamebait mode off)

[ric449]

Ok, nobody listen to deathonastick. As for everyone else, thanks for the advice.

[ric449]

Originally posted by Alfie One must realize the low end AMD cpus are now the XP's,the high end AMD cpus are the 64's,so if you start comparing high end,you should be looking at these cpus,when this is the case,we see AMD's 64 and fx series shed a new light,if fsb should be an argument the 64's boast a 1600 fsb.

True, but from benchmarks I can see AMD can usually keep up with Intel with the Athlon XP series, and I am planning an article on 64-bit anyway that should clear all this up. As for the FSB arguement, I will take that out as it seems un needed.

With all the instructions and tutorials available on installing a heatsink,I find that argument old,either cpu without a heatsink can be damaged,all new AMD motherboards have built in protection that communicates with the cpu,temp gets beyond the preset thresholods,the computer will shut down.

A lot of AMD problems I come across in forums and the chat room I help out at seem to be that the heatsink was not installed properly, meaning the core has been cracked or the chip has overheated. AMD have a similar feature as Intel with the overheat protection, but this thread should show you why it isn't too reliable: http://forum.pcmech.com/showthread.p...threadid=95607

Well, after all this I will fix up the guide thanks for the help all.

[ric449]

I just searched the forum for AMD vs Intel, and it turns out that a lot of people are saying the AMD chips can't keep up with Intel apart from AMD 64. So I think I should add that in too.

[morriswindgate]

Let me remind you that the people on these and other forums have a lot of brand loyalty. In reality both AMD and Intel build a quality product, but processor speed is just part of a computer. The best example of this, and I have seen this due to the number of computers I have worked on, is take one of those nice little cheap 2.6 P4 computers that Dell, Gateway or E-Machines sell and then a computer running a great Video card, motherboard, RAM and Harddrives with a 2.6 P4. What you will find is the cheapie is slow and sluggish where the other machine is fast and smooth even though both have a 2.6 GHZ P4. It is all the other parts working in conjunction with the CPU that allows it to perform.

[glc]

Originally posted by deathonastick (flamebait mode on) It's easy: If you want a screaming fast game machine go AMD If you want a real computer that pays for it's keep go Intel. (flamebait mode off)

Groan............

Read the sticky thread at the top of this forum, please.

[Markoman01027]

Originally posted by deathonastick (flamebait mode on) It's easy: If you want a screaming fast game machine go AMD If you want a real computer that pays for it's keep go Intel. (flamebait mode off)

My system is a screaming fast game machine and it's an INTEL P4.

INTEL/AMD, whatever your budget allows you to get. Remember..like most people probably have said already, CPU is NOT everything in a computer, there are many factors that determine if it will be a "screaming fast game machine"

[ric449]

Please don't let this spiral off into a processor war.....

[bailey]

looks like your too late and its already started
LOL

[ric449]

Prays to the forum gods to not let this happen

[Trent Steel]

Originally posted by Radioactiveninja A good benifit of the AMD is that they keep the price down on intel chips

Exactly, with the competition they keep each other in check in terms of prices and the determination to be faster then their competitor is a driving factor behind recent speed increases.
When it comes down to it your really comparing apples and oranges, either will work if your fighting off scurvy.

[Mac Medic]

You should prob. mention that Intel are going to move away from rating their processors by clock speed, I think they have realized that efficiency is a more important measure. Their processors have been a lot less efficient than AMD or Power PC for a long time and the general masses are starting to figure that out. They are on the right track with the pentium M processor, lower clock shorter pipeline = a highly efficient chip.

[Jaggannath]

Whatever wets your whistle, buy it
It's essentially splitting hairs nowadays
I have AMD, doesn't mean I don't think Intel is good

[deathonastick]

A few points you overlooked there ric449:

AMD have put practically all their high-end future eggs in the 64 bit basket but when people eventually figure out that 64 bits apps compile larger (about 20%), require more memory (about 15-30%), and RUN SLOWER (about 15%) than 32 bit apps that is going to be one BIG headache for them. Amd chips, while in some way architecturally superior to Intel, also scale poorer with SMP, the presumptive wave of the future. I give it 6 months to a year before the benchmarks start appearing on the so-call enthusiasts sites and the 64 bit craze slowly "peters out". (hey there's another slang phrase for you)

Alas, the overprotective mod deprived you of my devastating come-back to your rudeness so I guess you'll have to use your imagination.

[ric449]

64 bit apps run slower than 32 bit apps? Somehow I think not. At least in the benchmarks I seen. Why would AMD bother with 64 bit if it was slower than 32 bit?

[glc]

Alas, the overprotective mod deprived you of my devastating come-back to your rudeness so I guess you'll have to use your imagination.

I don't know what forum you came from, sir, but we have a FAQ here that we enforce. I suggest you read and heed. Flaming = ban. Nuff said?

http://forum.pcmech.com/misc.php?&action=faq

- Moderator -

[OMG!]

I agreed with you up until you came to the the comparisons.
You compared a Barton 2500 to a 2.8C, two different competitiors. The 2500 was meant to go up against a 2.5 P4 which I don't know exist or not. Anyways, what you should have compared it to was a 2800 Barton vs a 2.8C. Now I don't know what the benchmark comparisions are between the two. But here's the pricing between the them:

P4:http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...116-161&depa=1

XP:http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...103-377&depa=1

Don't get me wrong I am a fan of both companies. I own a XP1700 and a P4 3.0GHz, but hey I just think it should be at least a fair match.

As for the bang for the buck. For AMD it can be, if you to take advantage of it.

P4's come with a nice HSF and pretty well packaged. But is it really work the extra $63?

Again this is assuming that, they both have the same performace levels.

I would just buy what ever's available and if I have the money for it.

[i3OSS]

what i see is, INTEL seems to be the more well-known company over AMD. Because INTEL has a good name and people who are computer illiterate would straight ahead pick INTEL, not knowing that there are more than 1 company for processors. But for us, we have the option to pick from 2 great companies for processor.

Heres a Video clip that includes: benchmarks & temperature.
http://www.tomshardware.com/images/t...0_athlon64.zip

[kram 2.0]

Remember also that Intel, at least the Northwood core, runs significantly cooler than the AMD barton core, surprisingly. That shouldn't be a source of worrying, though, since if the temperature gets too hot, they autoshutdown, as mentioned before. Then again, there's the option of running away from both and using a Mac! (j/k)

kram

[ric449]

Originally posted by OMG! I agreed with you up until you came to the the comparisons. You compared a Barton 2500 to a 2.8C, two different competitiors. The 2500 was meant to go up against a 2.5 P4 which I don't know exist or not. Anyways, what you should have compared it to was a 2800 Barton vs a 2.8C.

Sorry, I wasn't actually trying to make any comparisons, sorry if it seemed that way. I'll try to sort it out.

[Confused]

Whatever you write will be obselete 18 months from now, maybe sooner.
Chas