-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
AMD or Pentium
- Thread starter Cimarron
- Start date
The Bookerman
Member
Athlon 64 X2.
CurlySaysX
Banned
AMD 64 3500+
Comfort_Eagle
Banned
Athlon 64's kick some serious ass. Great price point, too.
Outdoor Miner
Member
I would like to endorse AMD at this time, but Intel has informed in doing so I risk losing my entire family.
So Intel
it is.
So Intel
AMD really
Date of Lies
Banned
I favor pentiurm 4 for a better more stable processor and it's better for multi-tasking and encoding.
but AMD is the gaming choice, even if P4 does the job no problem.
but AMD is the gaming choice, even if P4 does the job no problem.
Shogmaster
Member
Date of Lies said:
Please do tell. :rolleyes
I would agree it's more stable. My last couple processors have been AMD, and my next will be Intel if it's any time in the next year or two. Just tiny little glitches get really annoying. The AMD motherboard thing with the via chipsets that cause sound glitches is so annoying. Same with geforces and radeons. I've had a couple both, and my next will be a geforce, even if the ATI card pushes out slightly better performance. Drivers there occasionally cause me problems, while the geforces have been absolutely flawless. I probably do just as much video encoding as I do PC gaming these days, and Intel has just treated me right more often than the competition over the past ten or fifteen years here.
OptimusPrime
Banned
Yup VIA...get a freaking Nforce mobo 
Or maybe people are just talking out of their asses, as usual.Shaheed79 said:
Intel is hardly more reliable. Their CPUs have had numerous bugs over the years which have caused many headlines.
Intel's new CPU revision generate a lot of heat which make them keener to dive under heavy load.
AMD and Intel has also had a cross licensing deal ever since the first IBM PC was made.
Even thou the nature of the deal were changed in 96. AMD knows very well how the x86 architecture works and they have managed to refine it and extend it better then Intel.
It isn't by sheer luck they are the current x86 technology leader
Robert-GCA
Member
thats what i have in my laptop...love itCurlySaysX said:
just ordered an X2 4200+ with nForce4 Ultra board.
really, the X2 just made the majority of P4's obsolete. anything that uses hyper-threading will run better on the X2, and Intel's current Pentium D's are a joke. Even the EE is completely a joke in most cases (for the money that is).
Until Intel comes out with an improved multicore design (next year I believe) AMD is clearly the leader.
And people can say that dual core is useless all they want these days, but when I can render a Premiere scene on one core while playing BF2 on the second core, well.. I guess it really is useful.. Now if only someone would create a practical enthusiast need for a 64-bit operating system.
really, the X2 just made the majority of P4's obsolete. anything that uses hyper-threading will run better on the X2, and Intel's current Pentium D's are a joke. Even the EE is completely a joke in most cases (for the money that is).
Until Intel comes out with an improved multicore design (next year I believe) AMD is clearly the leader.
And people can say that dual core is useless all they want these days, but when I can render a Premiere scene on one core while playing BF2 on the second core, well.. I guess it really is useful.. Now if only someone would create a practical enthusiast need for a 64-bit operating system.
that must be why my Intel chip on my Intel chipset at work is the only PC I've seen the BSoD on with XP.Ryudo said:
let's throw around more anecdotes. bottom line is any mature chipset will work just fine and that chip for chip, AMD is just better than Intel currently.
borghe said:And people can say that dual core is useless all they want these days, but when I can render a Premiere scene on one core while playing BF2 on the second core, well.. I guess it really is useful.. Now if only someone would create a practical enthusiast need for a 64-bit operating system.
I imagine once devs get busy with X360 and PS3, you'll see games benefitting from multithreading, and really flying on multicore processors.
Rabid Wolverine
Member
gohepcat said:
Nvidia will be adding support in the 80 series drivers for muliti core cpus. Be very interesting on what increase will be seen.
If your into overclocking the Athlon 3000+ Venice is a very good on normal stock cooling. Some even going up to 2.8Ghz.
borghe said:that must be why my Intel chip on my Intel chipset at work is the only PC I've seen the BSoD on with XP.
let's throw around more anecdotes. bottom line is any mature chipset will work just fine and that chip for chip, AMD is just better than Intel currently.
anecdotes ? cmon pull the other one it plays music !
Intel have a great reputation for having stable and well performing chipsets, thats why corporations, government agencies etc are majority adopters of intel cpu/chipset systems.
AMD have better cpu's currently, but their motherboard chipsets from via and sis and lesser extent nvidia are average.
I own an AMD system for the record.
Hurricane_Chris
DDK
Depends on what you're doing...
Gaming, internet stuff, word processing (writing papers and such) go with AMD. But DO NOT even consider their dual core offerings.
If you're writing code, running multiple hungry apps in parallel or working with stream data (video , music, etc) go with Intel's dual core offerings without Hyper threading. Cost is marginally more, and if you look the exact same price as the single core offerings.
If you're doing some work heavy on the floating point operations get a Mac before they switch over to Intel.
Gaming, internet stuff, word processing (writing papers and such) go with AMD. But DO NOT even consider their dual core offerings.
If you're writing code, running multiple hungry apps in parallel or working with stream data (video , music, etc) go with Intel's dual core offerings without Hyper threading. Cost is marginally more, and if you look the exact same price as the single core offerings.
If you're doing some work heavy on the floating point operations get a Mac before they switch over to Intel.
ryudo - don't kid yourselves. Governments et al use Intel chipsets because they use Dells. If/when Intel's money runs out and Dell adds AMD offerings, I would love to see who "everyone" uses then.
ddkawaii - Intel's dual core is cheaper, definitely (and by a lot). However you get what you pay for. And in this case, it isn't much. Look at any benchmark and you will see that all X2's beat all 820's. No competition. The only CPU that can keep up with the X2's in multi-threaded apps is the 840, and then it is way over priced. And the only CPU that can beat the X2's in some multi-threaded ops is the EE, which is as much as the 4800+, and even still loses in many/most tests.
The 820 gets props for being a cheap dual core (compared to X2's). But then on single threaded apps the 820 is still slower than much cheaper single core CPUs.
Right now if you absolutely want multiple cores, but $500 is too much, then sure, go with an 820. But don't expect to look at benchmarks and be in awe of its competitors.
Note I don't hate Intel. I just think that they made a serious mistake ever since the P4. Next year (Whitefield?) when they pretty much redo their design and bring it closer to AMDs with shared memory handling and FSB pipes (IIRC) then they will be able to compete, and for the first time since the P4 they will (this time) improve their CPU for the better, instead of just making it faster. But until then, there are way too many bottlenecks on the 820 and even 840s. I go and buy a dual core 2.8Ghz CPU and I don't want it performing slower than a single core 2.8Ghz CPU.
ddkawaii - Intel's dual core is cheaper, definitely (and by a lot). However you get what you pay for. And in this case, it isn't much. Look at any benchmark and you will see that all X2's beat all 820's. No competition. The only CPU that can keep up with the X2's in multi-threaded apps is the 840, and then it is way over priced. And the only CPU that can beat the X2's in some multi-threaded ops is the EE, which is as much as the 4800+, and even still loses in many/most tests.
The 820 gets props for being a cheap dual core (compared to X2's). But then on single threaded apps the 820 is still slower than much cheaper single core CPUs.
Right now if you absolutely want multiple cores, but $500 is too much, then sure, go with an 820. But don't expect to look at benchmarks and be in awe of its competitors.
Note I don't hate Intel. I just think that they made a serious mistake ever since the P4. Next year (Whitefield?) when they pretty much redo their design and bring it closer to AMDs with shared memory handling and FSB pipes (IIRC) then they will be able to compete, and for the first time since the P4 they will (this time) improve their CPU for the better, instead of just making it faster. But until then, there are way too many bottlenecks on the 820 and even 840s. I go and buy a dual core 2.8Ghz CPU and I don't want it performing slower than a single core 2.8Ghz CPU.
Hurricane_Chris
DDK
borghe said:
The X2s are the superior performing product however AMD is keeping the price artificially high because they can't keep up with demand if it were dropped to normal levels (they said as much in a shareholders meeting). Intel's dual core offerings, while clocked slower than their single core counterparts will in the long run (when more apps become multithreaded and OS schedulers are optimized for multi-processor performance first) will be a batter cost/performance buy if you're getting a processor today.
If youre the type that upgrades to the best perfoming cheapest processor every year (like I do) then either A64 or dual core Intel chip. If you want it to last for a while and have cash to burn X2. If you want a chip that will give you some flexibility in the future for a fair price..intel dual core....
If you can wait a little bit, wait for intel's move away from p4's current shitty cores and compare that to what amd is offering at the time ...
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
Intel used to have a last bastion of hope known as video encoding and Hyperthreading optimized apps. Now they have nothing..nada zilch. Hyperthreading has betrayed them, their precious MHZ have been replaced by model numbers, and AMD has wrestled away all doubt they used to hold in their hands. Why is intel still a leader? Because they give kickbacks to computer makers, and they make cheap commodity boards with integrated graphics chips. Theres nothing intel has now except the fact that they make their own platforms. Even this is becoming a moot point soon Via, Ati and Nvidia will have their own platforms for both cpu's. Via has that Volari/S3 video card combined with its motherboard / ATI the rage xpress and its video cards / and of course the ever venerable Nforce and GeForce combo. All three of these platforms will have every aspect of the system contained by the respective manufacturer. Each will feature
integrated sound
raid controllers
SATA controllers
integrated network interface card
integrated USB 2.0
integrated IEEE firewire
basically you wont be using up too many add in slots and the only add in will be the video card made by the motherboard manufacturer.
Intel boards are no more "reliable" than any of these platforms. Trust me i've had to switch a failed intel board out that was as old as my Kt7 board (that still works flawlessly btw) not fun, swtiching motherboards never is fun though. The BS about intel platforms being the safe bet are just absurd at this point, they're all made right next to each other at TMSC any fuckin way.
integrated sound
raid controllers
SATA controllers
integrated network interface card
integrated USB 2.0
integrated IEEE firewire
basically you wont be using up too many add in slots and the only add in will be the video card made by the motherboard manufacturer.
Intel boards are no more "reliable" than any of these platforms. Trust me i've had to switch a failed intel board out that was as old as my Kt7 board (that still works flawlessly btw) not fun, swtiching motherboards never is fun though. The BS about intel platforms being the safe bet are just absurd at this point, they're all made right next to each other at TMSC any fuckin way.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
Ryudo said:
No, all major corps and government agencies use Intel because they've used unfair business practices to force all the major system suppliers (like Dell or, in the old days, Compaq or Gateway) to use their chipsets. Why the hell do you think AMD is suing Intel for violation of the anti-trust act, among other things?
ddkawaii - you make some good points about price, and I did agree as much earlier. their prices ARE artifically high right now and they wouldn't be able to meet demand.
the problem I was stating is two-fold though with Pentium D. First, they are slower clockspeeds, though this isn't what I was referring to. The fastest 820 is 2.8Ghz right now, vs. the fastest single core which is 3.7Ghz.
Second, and this is what I was referring to, there are many instances where a 2.8Ghz Pentium D actually performs slower than a 2.8Ghz single core P4. Where a 3.2Ghz 820 is outperformed by a 3.2Ghz P4. The X2 is win/win. In apps that are single threaded it will perform identically to an Athlon64 of the same speed (so my 4200+ will perform the exact same as a 3500+ single core). But the Pentium D isn't the same. I will have to look on Anand or Tom's but the tests were there showing this.
Of course none of it matters if you don't have $500 for AMD. But then the question is do you go for dual core just for the sake of dual core and sustain some performance decreases with the Pentium D, or do you just go with a lightning fast single core Athlon64?
(Note I am only talking about the 820 here. the 840 and EE are entirely different, though at that point cost is once again a factor)
the problem I was stating is two-fold though with Pentium D. First, they are slower clockspeeds, though this isn't what I was referring to. The fastest 820 is 2.8Ghz right now, vs. the fastest single core which is 3.7Ghz.
Second, and this is what I was referring to, there are many instances where a 2.8Ghz Pentium D actually performs slower than a 2.8Ghz single core P4. Where a 3.2Ghz 820 is outperformed by a 3.2Ghz P4. The X2 is win/win. In apps that are single threaded it will perform identically to an Athlon64 of the same speed (so my 4200+ will perform the exact same as a 3500+ single core). But the Pentium D isn't the same. I will have to look on Anand or Tom's but the tests were there showing this.
Of course none of it matters if you don't have $500 for AMD. But then the question is do you go for dual core just for the sake of dual core and sustain some performance decreases with the Pentium D, or do you just go with a lightning fast single core Athlon64?
(Note I am only talking about the 820 here. the 840 and EE are entirely different, though at that point cost is once again a factor)
Ryudo said:
I don't fancy myself a fan of AMD, but I hope they do well to keep Chipzilla in check though. I use what's best for the money. Right now that's AMD. In fact it has been AMD for quite some time IMO.
Back in the Slot A, and early Socket A days I would agree with the chipset stability issue. However, I don't think stability is nearly the issue that it used to be. At one time, you couldn't have given me a VIA chipset board; or even an AMD one for that matter.
I have two VIA boards now. One runs an XP 2000+/Win2K3 Server (edu); and the other runs my A64/XP Pro rig. I've had not one single problem out of either thus far.
borghe said:just ordered an X2 4200+ with nForce4 Ultra board.
really, the X2 just made the majority of P4's obsolete. anything that uses hyper-threading will run better on the X2, and Intel's current Pentium D's are a joke. Even the EE is completely a joke in most cases (for the money that is).
Until Intel comes out with an improved multicore design (next year I believe) AMD is clearly the leader.
And people can say that dual core is useless all they want these days, but when I can render a Premiere scene on one core while playing BF2 on the second core, well.. I guess it really is useful.. Now if only someone would create a practical enthusiast need for a 64-bit operating system.
I keep asking myself; "who the fuck can afford this?", when I send X2's to retailers. Obviously, you're one of those that can. Envy!
borghe said:
We dont use dell and i dont know anyone that does . As for Intels money, it wont run out, they dont just make CPU's. So please keep the "dont kid yourselves" talk to yourself.
nerevar said:
Intel are no saints, but to rubbish their reputation with such blanket statements is just wrong. Intel got where they are from making great complete solutions, not simply making their cpu and letting the dodgey chipmakers finish their platform. Business is business.
YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST! NO ONE USES DELL! I can't believe how often this shit goes on GAF. Dell = number one in home. Dell = number one in corporate workstations. Dell = number one in non-mainframe servers. Dell doesn't use non-Intel chips or chipsets. So what has a large amount to do with Intel being number one again?Ryudo said:
As for running out of money, I misspoke. Basically, Intel pays Dell for an "exclusive arrangement" through generous discounts that Dell sets up. Essentially it breaks down to that Intel pays Dell the difference on every estimated "potential" sale of an AMD unit. The payment by way of discounting has gotten larger every year. At some point, it will no longer be worth it for Intel to provide Dell such discounts. And while I have no articles to link to, trust me when I say this is first hand from straight within the company. Which leads to....