Help with my Intel vs AMD guide

[ric449]

Ok, I'm writing a guide on how to decide which is right for you. Up to now I have included heat damage possibility, die damage possibility, and budget processors, and its already more than 2 pages long. I have planned overclockability, multitasking capability, best for gaming, encoding/decoding capability, technology lifetime, and motherboard support. I know there is more waiting to be added to the list, so go ahead and tell me here. It will just mean a more thorough guide for you .

[kram 2.0]

How about Pipeline Architecture - AMD shorter than Intel? Intel runs more processes / levels in order to process a task. Also, don't neglet to mention Intel Celeron and AMD's Athlon low cost CPUs.

Mention Hyperthreading, Level caches, and stuff like that.


Just a few suggestions - Hope that helps,
kram

[ric449]

Well, heres what I have right at this moment:

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. This is going to be one of my toughest guides, since this question is taboo on forums, and when tackling something like this you really have to consider both sides of the argument.

Whenever this question does appear, there are always two reactions, depending on the person. One reaction is from the people don’t want to start a fight, and they will say “Flip a coin, they are both great”. This is wrong, as it depends on what you want to do with the computer. The second group of people will defend their chosen processor brand to the death, and will continue giving reasons while AMD are better than Intel or Intel are better than AMD. These are commonly known as fanboys, and are generally not liked.

Also, whenever you see me say Pentium 4 in this guide, bear in mind I am also talking about the Pentium 4 based Celeron too.

So, now that’s out of the way, into the guide:

Heat
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. This is not as much of an issue anymore, since all the modern motherboards I know that are designed for Athlon XP processors now incorporate thermal protection, which will shutdown the processor if it overheats. As long as you remember to use thermal paste, and you can mount the heatsink correctly, then you should be safe. A guide to doing this properly is here.

The new AMD Athlon 64 processors have the thermal protection built in, so there is no worry about burning this new generation of processors out.

Intel have had this protection all along with their Pentium 4’s, all the Pentium 4 processors can throttle back their performance when they overheat, or cut themselves off, therefore saving the chip from burning out. This is true for the Prescott core Pentium 4’s too, which have a reputation for running hot. For a full explanation on how to install a heatsink on a Pentium 4 system, look here.

Verdict
So, after this it comes down to which processors you compare. If you compare the Athlon 64 and the Pentium 4, then both are equal. If you compare the Athlon XP and the Pentium 4, then the Pentium 4 has the slight advantage. This is only because the thermal protection is built into the processor, with motherboard support unneeded. Of course, if you have a motherboard for the Athlon XP that supports thermal protection, then it is equal to the Pentium 4 in this respect.

Processor damage
Next is the risk of processor damage before you even get the system started. I am talking about damaging the processor itself, by damaging the processor die. The processor die is the little black square you see on top of the processor. This doesn’t apply to the Pentium 4’s and the Athlon 64’s, since they have a metal heatspreader on top which protects the die, and is supposed to aid heat transfer.

You can damage the processor’s die by installing the heatsink incorrectly. The Athlon XP is most vulnerable, since it doesn’t have the heat spreader on top. This means if you are too brutal trying to install the heatsink, or you mount it incorrectly, you will damage the main part of the processor, effectively rendering it useless. Again, if you can follow instructions properly you shouldn’t have a problem.

Verdict
So, who’s the winner here? Again, it depends. If you compare the Pentium 4 and the Athlon 64, then they are equal. If you compare the Athlon XP and the Pentium 4, the Pentium 4 is the winner.

Budget
Ok, next point is your budget. As you should know, AMD and Intel both have their own processor lines targeted for the budget segment of the market. These are the Celeron from Intel, and the Duron from AMD. Now, this is where it gets a little tricky. In a recent test carried out comparing the Celeron processors to the Duron processors, the Celeron lost out every time. Durons are just simply better performers than the Celerons, no other way round it. This is possibly why AMD buyers usually say “AMD have the best bang for the buck”, because even though the Duron is a much better performer than the Celeron, the Celeron processors are still sold at a much higher price, and in some cases at a higher price than Athlon XP processors.

Of course, if you are not interested in performance at all, then you can buy either processor, there won’t be a noticeable difference if all you are interested in is work activities.

This is why most people who are on a budget buy an AMD based system. Intel simply doesn’t have a processor to compete with AMD in the budget sector, at least one that will match the performance of a Duron. And that’s not all, there is a new development in the budget sector. It seems that the Duron line of processors are being gradually phased out, and the Athlon XP processors are destined to take their place. This is a wise move, because you can buy a cheap Athlon XP processor nowadays for the same price as a Celeron, and the Athlon XP will simply annihilate a Celeron in everything no matter what you do. The new 64 bit line of processors from AMD are going to fill the mid range to high performance sectors for AMD, and are the current enemy to the Pentium 4.

So far the best bang for the buck processors from each company is the 2500+ Barton core processor from AMD, and the 2.8GHz C Northwood core processor 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. This is because, as you can tell from the model number of the AMD chip, it will roughly compete with a 2.5GHz Pentium 4. But what you need to remember is that it will compete with a 533MHz FSB Pentium 4 running at 2.5GHz, not a 2.5GHz Pentium 4 running a 800MHz FSB.

Verdict
So, who is the winner in this category? It has to be AMD. If you can’t afford a beast of a processor, then AMD is the way to go. Cheaper than Celerons, and more powerful too.

[kram 2.0]

I do not intend to criticize you, and if I do, I appologize. What I think you might be well off doing is doing a 10-day voting system on each one - so to assure a disinterested/impartial result. Cummon - all of us have a predetermined choice of Intel or AMD.

Like, let's say heat. I think that many people buy the Intel because the Northwood core P4s run very cool. The contrary can be said for the Barton - it runs hotter and therefore, more aid is needed to cool it down.

Trying to avoid the heated "Intel - AMD" debate, I think also, that it is only fair to compare 32bit processors to 32-bit processors - the 64-bits have yet to find many softwares and stuff that support them...even though the prices are around the same range. Remember also that AMD runs a slower FSB than Intels.


Hope that helps,
kram

[ric449]

Originally posted by kram8806 Cummon - all of us have a predetermined choice of Intel or AMD.

Exactly why I'm not asking for the voting system.

As for heat, unless you are overclocking that really doesn't matter to anyone (Unless the fan is very loud, but the stock heaksink isn't meant to be too bad). I'll be sure to put the Northwood as the core of choice for Intel users once I get that section finished.

As for the 64 vs 32 bit part, I need to have the 64 bit processors in there because they are AMD's new high end processors, and it wouldn't be fair to leave out AMD's best processors since I have Intel's flagship processor in there.

[fused]

Rick, sorry for interupted in this topic, i just wanna ask 1 question. i'm not a computer hussler.. okay, my question is, with mobo 800FSB, with no matter what kind of chipset it got, can it support celeron processor?[if it does, how to identified it] secondly, as the mobo 800FSB without prescott, can i upgrade my processor gradually from celeron to P4 northwood and later on P4 prescott with the same mobo.. is it possible rick?


thanx..

[lil Jimmie]

Originally posted by fused Rick, sorry for interupted in this topic, i just wanna ask 1 question. i'm not a computer hussler.. okay, my question is, with mobo 800FSB, with no matter what kind of chipset it got, can it support celeron processor?[if it does, how to identified it] secondly, as the mobo 800FSB without prescott, can i upgrade my processor gradually from celeron to P4 northwood and later on P4 prescott with the same mobo.. is it possible rick? thanx..

The chipset will determin what the board will support there are 2 chipsets that I recommend for such an upgrade path and that is the i865PE and i875P both support the 478 celerons and Northwood's right up to the Prescott's

[Vigo]

You should really focus on selected chips themselves and throw it under that title (AMD or Intel) if you wish. Its moot to decide on a company when your buying a specific chip, not company stock

For example, if you want to include the overclocking factor instead of misleading consumers by giving an overall description of the companies overclocking numbers, it'd be more useful to know which chip is better for overclocking than this chip and why.

Of course this would mean writing info and buying guides on the chips themselves, which is a lot more work, but a lot more useful. To me though, thats the best way to figure out if I'm going to buy an AMD chip or Intel. Thats how I bought my last chip, I looked at the chips themselves, what they had to offer, and what they were priced at. In fact, I would prefer not to know who makes the chip (if its a choice between intel or amd) and go soley on the chip specs/info.

But thats me. And thats my three cents.

Further: Not to imply any offense, and not to imply it to your project directly but I don't read articles that compare companies. If its an article on AMD vs Intel I wouldn't read it. I would however read an article on a barton 2500 vs Intel's 2.4 Northwood.

Three more cents.

(Helping myself build my own social security)

[fused]

Originally posted by lil Jimmie The chipset will determin what the board will support there are 2 chipsets that I recommend for such an upgrade path and that is the i865PE and i875P both support the 478 celerons and Northwood's right up to the Prescott's

yeah thanx lil jimmie..
so, that means i must really careful in selecting the chipset on mobo such as i875p or sis648fx and other rite? thanx dude, but if u have any reccommendation on the mobo brand, please post it!

[glc]

No such thing as a "bad" processor, but there sure are some bad motherboards. I won't use anything but an Intel chipset for an Intel processor and the price difference between good brands and lousy brands isn't much.