Posted September 3, 200519 yr I don't know if there is another thread about this, but I did all the searching I could and didn't find any. I would like to know what some of you out there prefer and why you prefer it. I'll start with my experience. In my experience, AMD's run hot and were quite slow for me(I haven't any with AMD64, Dual-Core, or HyperTransport technology however). The computer downstairs is an AMD Athlon 2400+, and is suppose to be running at 2.0 Ghz when really its only getting 1.6-1.8. I've had so many speed problems with that computer. That's why I stayed away from them for my computer. Intel processors(not including the shitty ass Celeron) have ran great for me. It's fast, runs cool, and does everything I want it to do. The one I'm using now is a Intel Pentium 4 540J w/HT running at 3.2 Ghz. Please give me some input.
September 3, 200519 yr AMD microprocessor have much better performance. Yes, they do practically overclock themselves because they are extremely hot. They require much better cooling than that of an Intel. However, if you have the right conditions for an AMD to work, it will work like a swiss watch. Now that you mention computers downstairs. I have an AMD downstairs that is 1.4-1.6 Ghz, it runs faster than any computer I have ever used. It only has 512 MB ram so that's nothing special. It is so quick at loading because it has such a high L1 and L2 cache. Hopefully you know what both of those are. Intel provides shit for a high price. For example, compare an AMD Opteron server to an Intel xeon. AMD Opteron's are much more reliable and much quicker than any xeon would ever be. Just remember, AMD requires more cooling than an Intel. I recommend if you are going to build it get a water cooling system, not a heat sync. And if you are going to play graphic intensive games (warcraft 3, everquest or something), get an ATI card. They work the most efficiently with AMD. Nvidia and Intel go well together and ATI and AMD go well together. Good luck with the computer!
September 3, 200519 yr I have an A64 2800+ OC@2100MHz I think. With stock heatsink, that's same as 3200+. I'm more than happy with mine, great performance.
September 3, 200519 yr Author AMD microprocessor have much better performance. Yes, they do practically overclock themselves because they are extremely hot. They require much better cooling than that of an Intel. However, if you have the right conditions for an AMD to work, it will work like a swiss watch. Now that you mention computers downstairs. I have an AMD downstairs that is 1.4-1.6 Ghz, it runs faster than any computer I have ever used. It only has 512 MB ram so that's nothing special. It is so quick at loading because it has such a high L1 and L2 cache. Hopefully you know what both of those are. Intel provides shit for a high price. For example, compare an AMD Opteron server to an Intel xeon. AMD Opteron's are much more reliable and much quicker than any xeon would ever be. Just remember, AMD requires more cooling than an Intel. I recommend if you are going to build it get a water cooling system, not a heat sync. And if you are going to play graphic intensive games (warcraft 3, everquest or something), get an ATI card. They work the most efficiently with AMD. Nvidia and Intel go well together and ATI and AMD go well together. Good luck with the computer! The turn off for me was that all the really good AMD processors were $800+, I mean the REALLY good ones. I prefer Nvidia over ATI now, though about a year ago I felt completely different.
September 3, 200519 yr Intel is better... Here is some proof... http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Intel&word2=AMD
September 3, 200519 yr Author Intel is better... Here is some proof... http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Intel&word2=AMD All that is is a popularity contest =S.
September 5, 200519 yr AMD running hot is a thing of the past, as Intel's run much hotter (look at the Prescotts.) Heat & wattage wise, your current system will use more power & put out more heat than an AMD64. AMDs have a better price per performance ratio.
September 5, 200519 yr Another thing in AMD's favor. If you ever want to go with the dual core processors, AMD chipsets/motherboards will allow you to just drop one in. Intel however, will make it necessary for you to get a new motherboard. So if you go with the AMD system now and decide to upgrade to the dual core when the prices come down, its pretty easy - just buying a proc In my opinion, I have built both AMD and Intel systems, I prefer AMD, the price performance ration is generally better.
September 5, 200519 yr Author Another thing in AMD's favor. If you ever want to go with the dual core processors, AMD chipsets/motherboards will allow you to just drop one in. Intel however, will make it necessary for you to get a new motherboard. So if you go with the AMD system now and decide to upgrade to the dual core when the prices come down, its pretty easy - just buying a proc In my opinion, I have built both AMD and Intel systems, I prefer AMD, the price performance ration is generally better. I wouldn't even buy any motherboard that doesn't have SLi capability. Don't most nForce4s run dual core?
September 6, 200519 yr AMD runs better for gaming, and the new ati chip looks like its gonna be better than the nvidia 7800gtx, and ati is comming out with its own version of sli, and those motherboards are supposed to run 5-10 percent cheaper
September 6, 200519 yr Intel is better... Here is some proof... http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Intel&word2=AMD rifl http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=nig gers&word2=jews http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=sex&word2=god
September 8, 200519 yr In my experience, AMD tends to out perform its Intel counterparts. I have an AMD K6-2 thats a fucking work horse! My desktop is an AMD Athlon XP 2200+ (1.8GHz) and it still out performs the Intel Celeron 2.2GHz I have..
September 8, 200519 yr Author Jasper']In my experience, AMD tends to out perform its Intel counterparts. I have an AMD K6-2 thats a fucking work horse! My desktop is an AMD Athlon XP 2200+ (1.8GHz) and it still out performs the Intel Celeron 2.2GHz I have.. Celerons are shit though =S.
September 8, 200519 yr The AMD heat issue was resolved with the 64 bit proccesors. I for a time switch back to Intel for the heat reason, the AMD XP series ran just too fucking hot. That all changed with the AMD 64. These things run very cool and they use less power. I got a 3200+ AMD 64 939pin and its overclocked 400mhz (2ghz to 2400ghz) and it's only running on the stock heatsink/fan and its 38c idle and 46c under load. Now I dont have it in some monster case with 4 fans or shit like that, pretty basic mid tower with no extra fans, good power supply tho with two fans on it. At a lower speed this thing fucking kills my P4 (3.0ghz) in all tests ive done. My P4 also runs hotter and has a 60 dollar heatsink/fan and is not even overclocked. So right now, AMD 64 just owns Intel when it comes to pretty much everything. Price Performance Speed Heat Power Overclocking ....... I highly recommend them and have no stability issues or anything.
September 8, 200519 yr Author OldManPeterson']The AMD heat issue was resolved with the 64 bit proccesors. I for a time switch back to Intel for the heat reason, the AMD XP series ran just too fucking hot. That all changed with the AMD 64. These things run very cool and they use less power. I got a 3200+ AMD 64 939pin and its overclocked 400mhz (2ghz to 2400ghz) and it's only running on the stock heatsink/fan and its 38c idle and 46c under load. Now I dont have it in some monster case with 4 fans or shit like that, pretty basic mid tower with no extra fans, good power supply tho with two fans on it. At a lower speed this thing fucking kills my P4 (3.0ghz) in all tests ive done. My P4 also runs hotter and has a 60 dollar heatsink/fan and is not even overclocked. So right now, AMD 64 just owns Intel when it comes to pretty much everything. Price Performance Speed Heat Power Overclocking ....... I highly recommend them and have no stability issues or anything. What would be the equivalent to this or close enough in an AMD? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116195
September 8, 200519 yr Currently, 64bit means nothing -- there are hardly any applications that support it. So, by saying that AMD or Intel is better because of its processor's bandwidth is kinda stupid. The fact is, AMD and Intel processors can both run on many of the same model boards, ie. Asus A8N Sli Deluxe, with hardly any *noticable* performance gain or loss. It's more a question of context. Choosing which processor is for you is about understanding the pros and cons of each. Some problems you run into with Intels are totally different than AMDs, and vice versa.
September 8, 200519 yr bandwidth... wtf... the reason 64 bit processors are better is they have 128 bit bus whereas 32 bit processors only have a 64 bit bus, therefore more instructions can be put out by the processor and result in faster system performance.
September 8, 200519 yr I believe OMP was saying AMD's 64bit line is better as it runs cooler, not just because it is 64bit
September 8, 200519 yr I believe OMP was saying AMD's 64bit line is better as it runs cooler, not just because it is 64bit Exactly, I'm not talking 64bit OS or even apps, I'm running all 32bit shit and it just blows away my P4 as I said earlier. The 64 line from AMD has really impressed the hell out of me, I wouldn't for a second have a issue buying more or using them to build computers for customers of mine.
September 8, 200519 yr When it comes to AMD and intel AMD is the chioce for gaming. But AMD warranty sucks balls i had an AMD64 and it burnt out so when i returned it to get a new one it took 1 month to get it. but my p4 3.2 when it burned out i got a new one within a week. AMD = gaming intel = warranty I dont mind both but once again its all on what u are looking for.
September 10, 200519 yr One of two things: A. Learn to deal with it taking awhile to replace parts you fried from overclocking or B. Learn to put on a fucking heatsink
September 10, 200519 yr This is like arguing over Nvidia and ATI: There's no fucking difference. The only thing I would say is some of the p4s have some heating issues, but this can be sorted with a decent heatsink.
September 14, 200519 yr performance/price ratio of amd is better. runs cooler, and more overclockable amd 64 sluaghters p4's, any edition. can run windows 64 bit or nix 64 bit right now, your outa luck with a p4. way better for gaming. i dont care if intel has an advantage loading ms office. lol. i have built all of my own comps, and for friends, and for sale, all of em amd, aint used a pentium sence the first of 2 486's. <--amd/ati guy. plus, amd isnt as much of a corperate giant, and i usually go for the underdog :)
