hey, I want to get a new system but I am wondering on which processor to get. What do you think of the durability and cost of the two processors, AMD and INTEL?
hey, I want to get a new system but I am wondering on which processor to get. What do you think of the durability and cost of the two processors, AMD and INTEL?
i was gona create a topic on this, its a good thing i searched 1st!
i had a chat with dell consultants and asked them the diff btw the intel and amd processors! they told me its d same same performance and just diff brands!
after reading through this thread! and a cnet review, conclusion is AMD processors are powerful than the intel!
i would like to know wich AMD processor matches the intel core2 duo!??
well, just to add a little gas to this. I saw this thread a few days ago and decided to ask at a local electornics giant. what i was told:
The biggest carriers of AMD laptops as I know it is slowly getting out of AMD processors because AMD processors do not have a cooling fan of which Intels have. AMD processors tend to have mor issues as the computer ages.
I have had an intel pentium laptop since 2003 and it is still going till today. I do not turn it off, it runs constantly.
Because it is cheaper sometimes does not mean it can wihstand the power surges in Nigeria, think long and hard about it. I am not picking any sides but that cooling fan for your processor is important.
I still take exception to quite a number of your points, and the hanging thing still needs to be explained, but my carelessness in dismissing your fact about the 1ghz thing appears to have shot my credibility to pieces.
Interestingly, I based my confidence on a memory of an article from back then, talking about the first thunderbirds (950mhz) and AMD's claims that they would outperform the 1ghz plus pentium4's.
Another article on emulators.com (rather famous, u prolly read it) also dissected the p3 and p4 and went to great lengths to explain intel's reluctance to allow p3's cross the 1ghz barrier, lest they are shown to be blatantly superior to comparatively clocked p4's- manifested in their handling of tualatin. The article gave the impression that AMD had not crossed 1ghz at that time. I suppose reading it again will manifest that as a false assumption,
Ah well. I suppose for the purposes of this thread I should concede to you since you obviously have a more stable basis for your arguments. Nonetheless, you may wish to do a bit of research on the athlon64 to determine the origin of my position.
about the discrediting poo. i just stumbled on an archived page dated March 6, 2000 that says the same thing. http://www.dwightsilverman.com/cpq-gig.htm
just in case you're lazy to go there, let me drop a few lines
'Both Compaq Computer Corp. and Gateway on Monday said they will sell computers that use Advanced Micro Devices' new 1-gigahertz processor, but those who've tested systems say some users may not see a dramatic performance boost.'
'With Monday's announcement, AMD becomes the first maker of personal computer processors to sell a chip that runs at a gigahertz, the equivalent of 1,000 megahertz. '
'In doing so, Sunnyvale, Calif.-based AMD beat out chip giant Intel Corp. for bragging rights as the first to deliver a 1-GHz processor. Intel is scheduled to announce a gigahertz version of its Pentium III chip on Wednesday.'
'Michael Miller, editor-in-chief at PC Magazine, said a business-application test showed the Compaq and Gateway Athlon-based PCs were not as fast as a Dell Dimension with an 800-MHz Pentium III computer. Miller said the processor in the Dell has a built-in L2 cache.'
can u see that all ur babbling about all amd processors performing more work per clock cycle compared to intel ones arent fully true? man, i've got a brilliant memory. i read that six years ago in magazines. as said earlier, i have been into processors since the 90's. so calling my posts insightful is a bit of an understatement. they are facts.
and i still repeat. the processor race is very competitive. neither intel nor amd stays a winner for too long
I was going to aologize for the point 3 citation thing, but I guess that will need to wait, cos you comitted the exact same blunder yourself, if your explanation is to be taken seriously.
I did NOIT tell cristino not to go c2d because of low closck speeds. for the sake of osutompolor's kunu-filled beard I am the person here that has been arguing in FAVOUR of lower clock speeds, for Jesus' sake. If you BOTHER to read my posts AT ALL you will see that i acknowledge that the c2d beats AMD at every turn!
my points are:
1) before c2d, Intel has been clearly behind AMD. this is so glaringly obvious and such common knowledge that I cant imagine why the hell I am even bothering to give this issue time of day! For GOD'S sake are you ttrying to tell me there was a single prescott processor that even smelt AMD's rear lights in terms of performance? If you are then all I can say is, oh dear.
2) the c2d is intel's AMD-killer, AND IT DOES SO WITH A LOWER CLOCK SPEED, THUS PROVING MY POINTS!!!!
3) I say christino should NOT go for c2d's not because of low clock speeds BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL SHINING NEW AND THUS OVERPRICED! Look, we all live in Naija. Maybe u live in jand or yankee where its cool to get yesterday's processor NOW. In naija that dont work. No tech support, no compatible hardware, no nothing. He's better off waiting a year for ikeja to become c2d compliant
BUT I ALREADY SAID THIS. READ MY FR!CKIN POSTS.
As for the other issues you raised,
(a) the hanging=slow thing was tjust to make you see that the difference between amd and intel had become so great that even end-users could see it. of course any blithering slow mongoloid slowpoke knows that hanging doesnt EQUAL slow. HOWEVER THIS IS HOW THE USERS WILL COMMUICATE THEIR EXPERIENCES. Jesus.
The hanging thing is by no means p[roof thyat amd has been consistently killing prescotts for over a year. THAT is pure common sense AND common knowledge.
for jesus sake read my posts and stop jumping to conclusions based on a cursory scan of the contents. i say benchmark tests lie not because anyone is paying anyone off. I say benchmark tests lie because they, aaagh read my posts. I dont have to keep repeating myself. Ive said this exact thing already. Read the old post and respond to that, if you take exception with it.
finally your quip about first gigahertz processor coming from AMD is utter and complete bullshit. Please edit it out of your post before it discredits you, because most of what you have written, even if it conflicts with my views, is quite insightful and well-supported (i imagine that that is your main issue with me, I dont support my facts as well as u do) but THIS ALONE is pure bullshit. Go read up on the AMD thunderbirds, and on the twilight days of the p3, including the lil tidbits on the legendary tualatin processors. Much wisdon awaits you there.
maybe you didnt read my third point well, i didnt request for citation.well, that's what happens when you're out to attack. you miss even the most basic elements of a post.
you pointed out to christino that you wouldnt advise anyone to buy a core 2 duo because they are new and have low clock speeds. i simply replied by saying they are dual core for crying out loud! hope that makes you understand.
now coming to the others.
no will translate a hanging processor to mean a slow processor. that's why i requested for your sources. i have a feeling you just want to write seemingly big words so people would appreciate your posts. nice one there!
now to the benchmark stories. have you tried benchmarking yourself? have you visited overclock.net? if intel pays pc world and others, why doesnt amd do so as well? how come the big numbers mostly turn out to be in favour of intel? as long as you continue to argue blindly (or maybe not pointing us to your sources) i would rightly continue to request for 'em.
do you know the first gigahertz processor was from AMD? and do you know the pentium III 933Mhz outperformed it? you see, the processor race is a really competitive one. and as i have said earlier, neither intel nor amd stays a winner for too long.
Asking for citations for point 1 is ridiculous for obvious reasons. What do you need, an interview?!! jesus. It is an informal description of a daily occurence, and the only thing backing it is my credibility. If you choose to believe I pulled that whole story out my Bottom for no reason whatsoever than to oppose your point of view, you are entitled to that opinion. Sheesh.
You do NOT need a citation for point 2. It is not a statement of fact based on reference, it is merely a statement of fact based on pure common sense. A benchmark measures WHAT IT MEASURES and nothing more. You dont need a citation to figure that out. The extrapolation required to translate a benchmark test into a reasonable estimate of performance is highly subjective and problem-dependent, but uit is easyu to bamboozle the general public with big numbers, so hardware vendors just post them anyway and leave you to jump to your own wrong and inevitably 'seeded' conclusions.
I do not need to cite anything for point 3. just head to intel.com and check the advertised clock speeds for c2d's. And, if you say that you need 'proof' or a 'citation' that two cores running at a certain clock speed is in no way similar to one core running at twice its clock then I have nothing more to say.
Word darkman, word,
But have you heard of 3DMark05 I understand there's even 06 now, maybe if you can try that on your system, the download size is about 300MB or more. I have the full version of 05 if u need it, but i'm in Lagos. Google 3dMark05 and read up the reviews on it. I understand www.guru3d.com even have a forum where users come in to drop their views and their benchmarks on VGA's processors, mainboards and stuffs.
For Benchmark results, check http://forums.guru3d.com//showthread.php?t=179987
or check www.hardwaresecrets.com
cheers. FYI, Athlon 64 FX's now 218 dolls.
i was reluctant 2 use AMD wen i knew abt them 3 yrs ago.The likes of AMD K6's are as old as pentium 11's or Cyrix6x86's.i ave not really seen much diference in both since AMD's are high end processors and they zip reasonably well at image editing or gaming,i'll be dumb 2 burn alot of money on intel wen i can buy chips of intel speeds so cheap, Thnx to AMD
ok. I decided not to be more explicit previously, but I'll interpret the responses from naijafan, romulus and christino as requests for such.
I'll just request that u guys take a seat, relax, and let me do a little talking.gonna be a long post. Not trying to put anyone down here, hope we all understand! And if anyone has an issue, lets just put it up and settle it like men, so this thread becomes an informative one to anyone who comes here wanting to know thw answer to "AMD vs Intel: Which Is Better?"
aaight, first Romulus.
1) it is not a given that a 64bit chip will outperform a 32bit chip
2) with CPUs, speed and performance are the same thing, so one company can't be after speed while the other is after performance.
1) When you call a chip an 'x' bit chip, you are generally talking about word length. When word lenghts were still one or two bytes long (8 and 16-bit chips), it made a HUGE difference when you moved from one to another, because all of a sudden a task that took several instructions suddenly took a few. you didnt have to muck about with lsb and msb as much as usual (u sound like a comp.sci/ee person so i guess u know what that means, ) and so your speed increased dramatically.
Then we go to a default word length of Dword, which is what 32-bit chips have. Suddenly your integer range is from 0 to close to 5 billion. Not many people within the common problem domain need that kind of precision very frequently, so suddenly the operations that get a speed boost are not as common. Nonetheless, 32-bit chips gain prominence around the time of RISC development and many of the advantages of RISC procs (which btw are not actually due to risc itself but thats another story) are attributed to 32-bit procs. Similarly, the ablity to natively adress up to 4 gigs of RAM without mucking about with segments and offsets (pleeeease im begging with tears in my eyes, dont get bored, just listen, ) meant we had to deal with stuiff that previosuly was not feasible on chips with less adressing power- so we add stuff like protected mode, pre-emptive multitasking etc and the mass media trumpets all this as '32-bit features' when, even though these are xtixs of 32bit chips, have nothing to do with the word length.
fastforward to 1996. The 64-bit brigade comes in trumpeting, and all of a sudden it is glaringly apparent that there is little you can add to a chip that requires a higher word length. Oh there are high precision applications, but specialised chips are available to handle such.
for a decade we use 32-bit chips on our desktops.
All of a sudden , today a use has emerged for 32-bit chips:addressing memory above 4 gigs. All of a sudden 64-bit is the new buzzword. Intel tries to do the 'old thing' and use it as an excuse to totally re-invent the processors design. AMD just puts out the same old processors with double-sized registers, 64-bit extensions to the instruction set, and a longer word length and slaps on the name 'athlon 64'.
Guess who succeeded?
in short: word length is not only overrated, you are probably not using it, and if you decide to go thru the wahala of reinstalling windows and all your drivers just to be '64-bit compliant', goodluck telling the difference.
You say that since an amd has a clock speed less than the pri number, their chips are slower, and somehow have better 'performance' due to 'pipeline bursts' and 'ppc' or whatever.
unfortunately you fail to define what you mean by 'speed'. So let me help out.
processors consist of multiple units, the ones that concern us being the alu and control unit. the ALU is the 'powerhouse' where the work is done, and the control unit is the bit that makes it all happen in the realm of reality, by imposing real-world controls on the electron flow that cause the logic to actually make sense. In short, tha ALU does not function without the control unit. The control unit tells registers when to shift, pushes insructions down the pipeline. The work is done th teh arithmetic/logical unit (ALU)
now a major component of the control unit is the clock. The clock is an oscillator that ticks so many times a second, with each clock tick creating a burst of energy that moves the processor forward one 'state'. The reason the speed of the clock has always been associated with processor speed is:
based on chip design, if you run a processor clock too fast you will destroy the processor. SO a better processor accomodates a higher clock. So a faster clock means more performance!!!!
however if we take this out of context we are commiting a DANGEROUS BLUNDER, one that intel has succesfully capitalised on for at least 3 years of marketing underperforming processors. ALlow me to explain.
now when we say clock speed, we mean exactly that: CLOCK SPEED and NOT processor speed. we are talking about the speed of the clock. If i take a chip and attach a control unit with a higher clock speed, that does not fry the electronics of the chip, i will get a proportionately better performing chip! However, if i simply replace the ALU of the chip with a better, more efficient one, I also get a better performing chip!
we are measurng the performance on WORK DONE PER UNIT TIME. in short, SPEED.
get that? what you call 'performance' or 'muscle' is nothing more than SPEED.
and what you call SPEED is nothing more than CLOCK SPEED, which is supposed to be a VARIABLE in the calculatiuon of actual SPEED!!!!!!!
to rewrite your statement:
original: Intel is after speed and AMD is after peformance
correct: Intel is after CLOCK SPEED and AMD is after ACTUAL SPEED
which shows that, at the end of the day, intel is after a BIGGER NUMBER THEY CAN PUT ON THE BOX TO MISLEAD THOSE WHO CANNOT OTHERWISE TELL WHAT SPEED THEIR PROCESSOR IS AT , while amd is after A HIGHER SPEED EVEN IF IT MEANS THEY HAVE TO INVENT A NUMBER TO PUT ON THE BOX.
amd's prc numbers are nothing more than customer information saying 'we are as fast as an intel proessor clocked at this speed' so that customers are not misled!
pipeline bursts, ppc and so on are all measures of SPEED!!!! we are ALWAYS talking about SPEED! there is nop disconnect between SPEED and PERFORMANCE! CLOCK SPEED is just a VARIABLE used in finally determining the EFFECTIVE SPEED! clock speed is the speed at which the control unit orders things along! it has nothing to do with the proc except for the idea of chip design acommodating higher speeds! MY P4 3.0GHZ WAS DESIGNED TO ACCOMODATE 3000 MILLION CLOCK TICKS PER SECOND AT THE EXPENSE OF ACTUAL PROCESSING SPEED! INTEL SACRIFICED VALUE FOR A NUMBER THAT I COULD USE TO BRAG TO MY AMD-OWNING FRIENDS!
my p4 uses deep pipelines to accomodate a higher clock speed. any compsci person in the house knows how DAFT this decision is. the longer your pipeline, the worse your penalty for branch misprediction or any other thing that could cause a pipeline flush. silly? well it helps to bamboozle customers!
this brings me to the next dude,
yes, I did say ordinary users.
remember what i was saying to romulus just now about customer bamboozling? well, it works when the difference is so small that only gamers (eyes fixed on the fps meter) or video encoding people (looking at encode times) ever notice the difference. Well, recently, intel dumped the netburst (pentium 4) architecture and fired a whole load of top-level staff responsible for it. what could prompt such, pray tell? simple.
people notice 2 things about prescott-class (read: modern day) pentiums:
they are hot.
Aha, you say. Hanging doesnt mean slowness. It means instability. They should keep the procs cool. Except that, this 'hanging' is how an 'ordinary user' would describe what we compsi types would call 'blocking conditions'
computers nowadays are so fast that frequently, the hardware is able to do stuff at a speed where it makes itself available to a process but is not released by the previous one because it is still 'computing' and needs some time to finish. this is in contrast to the old days when we were always adding RAM and disk space since those were the bottlenecks. nowadays, most of us talk about 'cache', because we already have too MUCH ram and disk space. We now get to ACTUALLY SEE a process working, while the rest of the computer goes idle. And this, my dear friend, is what a user means when he says 'its hanging'.
he means: explorer is blocking. taskbar is blocking. WORD is blocking. IE is blocking. Printer drivers are blocking.
Now I work for a Bank that has deployed over a thousand machines in head office alone. I write code and have to suport it at the same time (silly i know, tell my bosses). Most of the time I get calls about 'hanging' and people BEG me to install on the 'black pcs' or if they read the cases,
they dont 'hang' as much!
translation: they are faster!
and the reason for this is that netburst enabled amd to gain a ridiculous advantage in pure speed, hoping that no-one would notice. Unfortunately, this did not turn out to be the case!
Oh, and finally I meant it: benchmark tests lie. And im not talking about nvidia tweaking drivers or whatnot. Im saying that such things as 'super pi' or whetstone calculation tests do just that- test how fast you can calculate flops or super pi. Finish. The ultimate benchmark test is just to USE the damn computer. And when one is noticeably snnappier than the other, aaaaaaaha.
my point: in the past, no-one cared about the CPU cos it was memory, vidcard, etc you looked at. But TODAY, cpus suddenly matter. because people realised AMD is faster.
its simple why your bros comp is faster. BOTH your cpus are capable of running the games smoothly. however BOTH your vidcards are most definitely NOT. his vidcard is obviously better than yours, making your cpu advantage moot, cos your extra CPU power is useless (since you are both GPU-limited and not CPU-limited).
cpu-limitation only occurs when both test systems are maxed out on gfx power. At that point slowdowns due to ai, etc will determine the winner.
I use an ati radeon X800XT 256mb GDDR3. prior to that I used an ATI RADEON 9800 PRO 128MB. no matter what the speed of whoever's laptop came to my 'battle chamber' was, or whoever's gaming pc i got to play on, my p4 2.26 GHZ beat them all mercilessly due to the superpowered vidcard. Only when i began to do cpu-limited stuff (dreamcast emulation, video compression for my PSP) did the inadequacy of my main proc become apparent.
conclusion: As you rightly poiint out, for many applications, the cpu-type is not important, because they will eprform identically and the deision will be left to peripherals (in this case vidcards). HOWEVER this is a thread about which proc is better, implying that WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING CPU LIMITED! running a risk asset schedule computetion program is one, which is why my users kow the differenct between processors. Playing emulated games is another, which is why me (and many in my circle of friends) will laugh at any person that yans about intel being faster. (disclaimer: c2d has defeared AMD. but I accounted for that earlier and explained why i dont advise buying it. PLUS c2d's are low-clock processors)
So there we are. a whole load of ranting. PS absolutely NO PART of the above post is useless grammar intended to confuse the reader. IT IS ALL RELEVANT so please read and shoot down any parts you feel need shooting, but please indicate the bits you agree with in order to keep discussion civil and short. If any bit is unclear its my fault and i will be glad to explain further. Thanks to all.
Hey dude. Don't get confused by all the crap sum guys have been saying. How can you say AMD 3200+ is equivalent to Intel's Pentium 4 3.2 Ghz. Thats so silly. Is it cuz they both have "32" or wat? 3200+ has a clock speed of 2.2GHz not 3.2. Well to the AMD vs Intel aspect. AMD processors are hard workers while intel processors are trail blazers. Intel is after speed and AMD is after peformance. It's not like Intel processors too don't perform, yeah, they do but they are not as good as AMD. The real truth is actually beyond those figures you see in your GUI and the boxes of those products. I mean, talking about processes per clock(PPC), pipeline bursts and all that stuff. This is when you can actually know how well processors perform. CHEERS!!!!!!!!11
that was a tough one. i think you should be more specific about what form of programming and the language you would be using. This is because a programmer's needs ranges from at least a typical 800MHz to a supercomputer! Desktop programming comes in different flavours, and so do web. For instance, a typical ColdFusion developer needs at least a 1.7Ghz processor as the application server sucks a lot of CPU juice.
Personally, to satisfy current and the nearest future trends, I'll suggest you go for a 2.0GHz processor with about 512K or 1M cache. 512MB RAM minimum and 60GB hard disk depending on your storage needs.
How on earth will ordinary users notice the difference between processors? Or where your imaginary users comparing an AMD AthlonXP to an Intel Pentium II 350MHz? That's the only time an ordinary user will notice anything.
The only way to compare CPUs is to figure out their boiling point by putting them through some stress, like hardcore 3D rendering which mostly occurs while playing games. Moral lesson: Only real gamers can really tell how badass a processor is. For the normal user, you could put your CPU to test by forcing it to perform calculations repeatedly until certain conditions are met. For instance, you could calculate the value of pi to x million digits. Just in case you want to try before you come ranting on this forum, google 'super pi', and download it. Even wikipedia has an article on it just in case you dont understand this post. You might consider posting your results on this thread before saying anything else. Right?!
I still need a proof for every word you say. THE WORLD CANNOT BE WRONG!
If intel pays to get high benchmark results, I guess so does NVIDIA!
I wouldn't mind if you can benchmark and overclock and give us results on Nairaland and let's run those murdfokas out of business but until then, i'm tired of living on hearsays, My HP laptop has an Athlon XP -M 2.12GHz (+2800) with 512MB RAM and 60GB HDD + 64MB ATI Shared VGA.
My younger brother has an Intel Centrino 1.73GHz, 512MB RAM, 40G HDD + 128 Intel VGA. This guy beat me hands down on Winning Eleven 7 as well as FIFA 2004 in terms of graphics and Speed.
How else do you need to benchmark? I have a P4 1.5GHz Desktop with Nvidia Geforce 2 64MB and man, I'm shortta words.
Tell me how else i can benchmark that? AMD used to be very cheap but the assholes are no longer worth their Intel companion prices anymore, check out the prices of Laptops with AMD Chips - almost Equally expensive, so why go crazy for nothing?
I've used Cyrix, Motorola, Intel and AMD, what more do I need, plus my Last project, I had to do a research on the least processor to use, I settled for Motorola because of the pricing, Intel 386 or even 8080 woulda been a good choice!
no i do not.
which is why i wont just go to a website and 'learn' from what amounts to paid coroporate junk, even worse than hearsay.
in my very before, AMD has thrashed intel consistently. So much so that even ordinary users (ie non-gamers, non-hardware freaks) notice it instantly.
in my very before, in fact right now, intels processors are noisy, steaming overheating pieces of junk (i still love my p4 630 anyway, despite the horrible whine it disturbs me with day and night)
as for power pack- i think you are right. But then abeg dont suggest pc outlet. Thats where all d rich kids go to buy ikeja-grade stuff for 8 times the price. They would NEVER have something as hardcore as a power supply minus case there, talkless of a SIX HUNDRED WATT POWER SUPPLY!!!! aaaaargh!!!!!
bros. the SLI and crossfire dual video card story is a completely different one from dual core CPU's. If you want make i explain please ask, I dont want to come across as a pretentious Naughty Person by yanning too much grammar without being asked to- but rest assured it is a completely different beast!
finally, there are three types of liars in this world: chronic liars, damned liars and benchmark tests. John C dvorak said that back in '95 and its still valid today. Believe not the benchmark tests. THEY LIE. once more if u want an explanation, ask!
Do you believe in hearsays? I believe in the results of experiments and not hype. I won't argue with you, just visit the site, www.guru3d.com and learn.
as for 600W power pack, you can't get it in Nigeria, maybe pcoutlet (@ Palms) should have it.
Have you heard of Duo VGA cards? that is 2 VGA Cards on one board?, check hardware/gaming sites and learn. Man, the best way to test the speed of any Specs is by benchmarking and that's best with games or rendering.
dude, cool down
we no understand wetin u dey talk
maybe if u just gist rather than quoting all those paid-marketing-shill sites we will hear u
wey pesin fit find 600w power supply for naija enh? plus nepa wahala w that kind of 'power'. Jesus christ. even to find 400w power for my non-overclocked prescott power guzzler w all d hard disks and x800 radeon i go put for motherboard it was still hell.
which one is athlon douple processor concept yadda yadda. me i no understand, im too dumb. I do know that dual core athlons are yesterdays news, so at least i know u arent claiming amd doesnt have a dual core processor out. You aren't, are you?
em, dude. You spend 3 paragraphs running intel down by claiming that if you super-overclock a previous gen proc it outperforms a current gen proc (you think?!! duhhhh) and also claiming that the figures dont add up as per bang for buck (ehen. say something new. No be intel?!!)
Then at the end of all that, you take a shot at a processor that has soundly beaten every single intel processor chip till date (save the c2d, which you appear to think is trash cos it doesnt compare w an overclocked chip that chops double power) while remaining cheaper and claim that it is a waste of money?!?!?!?
duuuuh. My brain needs a reboot,
THe Core 2 duo EXTREME is a SORDID waste of doe!
The E6600 Core Duo when overclocked can perform much better than it (with good cooling of course), it costs $315 while the EXTREME is about $1000. When overclocked, only AMD's double processor (concept - not out yet) can beat it and even then, intel has a SUPER PROCESSOR (concept) to be out january next year, so while AMD is trying to step up to intel, intel moves one step ahead - END OF STORY, INTEl is KING.
If you need to overclock the E6600, get a 600W powerpack and some very good cooling system, and brothers, you have something faster than the Core EXTREME. Athlon 64FX is a sordid waste of money, besides 2D and 3D processing, INTEL is king in all perspective.
well, you be big boy so u get d koin.
Me I need to save ma moolah.
Anytime someone almost convinces me to get a laptop I always end up thinking of the POWER of the desktop I could build w the same kishi, and that is always the deciding factor. My total hard disk space is now close to a terabyte (990 gigs, 3 250gig deives and 2 120gig drives). i havetwo cpus, one with a radeon x800 256mb ddr, the other with radeom 9800 pro. I have a spare radeon 9200 sitting around and onboard s3 savage. all 3 radeons have tv out with the x800 havng avivo video capture and Hi DEF component video out. I have a satellite suround sound set up with a super woofer, a super multi dvd rom/ram/cdr/rw drive (48x, 8x dvd, dual layer writing) with 512 megs in 1 cpu and 1 gig of 333mhz ram in the other cpu (the one with the silly overheating p4 630 3.0 ghz HT) bluetooth. wireless optical peripherals. The WORKS
All for less than one laptop that doesnt match EITHER of the cpus in power.
dude. He no go work. Even if i add my xbox 360 to the price of everything (and my starcomms internet line) he still no go reach the quarter million u guys splash on 'the' laptops.
big bros, rememba say me wey dey talk about the power of AMD sef don go buy p4.
reasons: a c2d will require you to change EVERYTHING. mobo, power supply, case, fan, the works. even your video card may need to change if u havent been using pci express. In short, u go buy new compurra. On top that it is expensive as %%!$$%!$#.
Of course all that is grammar if na laptop u dey buy, in which case just head to ikeja and hook up w some yahoo boys. but no be me an u dey take dat route. me I hate laptops cos they are non upgradeable and too expensive, but that is an opinion. I know 100% of other human beings on earth LOVE laptops and I no dey follow dem argue.
so why did yours truly, who claims that amd is the holy grail, go and suffer myself buying a silly overheating p4? simple- In ikeja so many ppl have the brainwashed mindset that 'intel is better cos, its, intel, ' and 'clock speed=performance so all these high clock speeds mean intel is faster!' both of which are lies. It was impossible to find a good athlon mobo+cpu, so i had to grudgingly settle for a p4. I bought 630 cos it is suppoosedly one of the best prescotts as per overheating, with all kinds of ogbonge tekinoloji (speedstep, 31c halt state etc) designed to minimize overheating. End result? 90 degrees plus, ages spent searching ikeja on foot for thermal paste and a better fan. Na god save me sef wey d processor no go fry and die.
in short: why MUST you have dual core? in todays world dual core processors are more a waste of money, if you are not running SMT software, and am sure u aint. Fashi dual core an get yasef a nice single core proc, save ya money, wait for core duo price to come down next year at which point ikeja will be swarming with them. Simple. Or if you MUST get dual core, get someone to import a dfual athlon 64 for u from "away"
(please excuse the bad spellings, )
Donmayor I beg you steer clear of the pentium D. You will live to regret it.
You go chop 'ween' with cache contention and overheating (even without that suicidal overclocking you want to go and do, overclocking prescott? dude don't go there!)
I have a pentium 630 3.0ghz ht and it is hell to keep it running below 60degrees. When i first bought it it regularly hit 90 degrees, and even now it is constatly running its fan at 4500rpm, I can hear the horrible loud whine from my open case.
also zeb, and everyone else, please understand this:
CLOCK SPEED MEANS NOTHING.
That is not 100% true, but the full explanatin would make this post too long. Just accept it like that: clock speed is no measure of performance. For proof, check out the speed of the fastest chip on the market: intel's core 2 duo. none is up to 3GHZ yet they leave the 3+ghz pentium 4s and pentium Ds in the dust
there is only one thing certain of a higher clock speed: MORE HEAT. MORE POWER CONSUMPTION.
so higher clock speeds are BAD
what you WANT to measure is:
PERFORMANCE PER CLOCK CYCLE
multiply that by clock speed and you have power. an amd rated 3000 will smoke a p4 3.0ghz mercilessly. I know this because I have tested them right in front of my eyes with various cpu-heavy applications (chankast and XVID). THERE IS NO COMPETIEION.
amd has been destroying p4's for years.
AT THE MOMENT the intel core 2 duo is better than anything amd has out, but it is an EXTREMELY RECENT DEVELOPMENT. If you are buying anyhting less than EXTREME CUTTING EDGE, amd is a better deal by far, and intels old reliability advantage does not hold, overheating chips are NOT reliable.
oh, and finally, prescott p4s (like the pentium d donm,ayor wants to punsih himself with) are even worse than reglar p4's due to their deep pipelines. What that means is that if i don't write my code in a special way, minimizing pipeline flushes, i will perform even WORSE than my already bad power x clock speed ratio. The core 2 has fixed this problem with short pipelines, but once agan, core 2 duo is EXTREME CUTTING EDGE and we havent seen amd's answer to it yet.
Err No. Like I stated earlier. You should not use clock speeds to compare AMD and Intel processors. This is because AMD processors do more work per clock cycle than Intel processors. That is why for example, an AMD 2200+ processor with a clock speed of about 1.8GHz will have the same performance or surpass an Intel 2.0GHz processor.
About what? I said ', neither stays a winner for too long'. That aint baised at all.
You started this thread by asking this question,
Dont you think you're the one who's mind is made up? Was just trying to help anyway,
And as you can see from everybody's replies, they've all got different preferences based on their various experiences. The fact that Intel's Celeron that was manufactured in 2002 has defects doesnt make Intel a loser; they've got numerous alternatives. Likewise, the fact that New said his AMD was always crashing/freezing and overheating doesnt mean AMD's inferior. He probably just got unlucky to have his chip in the production line supervised by a tired Indian after a hard day's work.
That's why i said you should try to enumerate what you want to do with your new computer (now and in the nearest future). That will give you an insight into the processor power that you need. After that, get two good processors that meet that requirement from both Intel and AMD. Read reviews (3rd party ones o! Not the ones on AMD's or Intel's site) about them. Choose, and buy.
Last word (except you need some more):
Test things yourself. Dont listen to the manufacturers. Right?!
Thanks for the links. My opinion:
- The first one was biased.
- The second one named AMD as 'The No. 2 chipmaker', and ended by saying Intel was releasing processors based on 65nm technology before the end of the year. It also stated that the 'contest' was in AMD's office in california and that Intel was going to get a chance at their own developers forum (you can bet AMD wont be present either).
- The third one stated that Intel laughed over it for some logical reasons, 'let the market decide'. But hmm. The CEO avoided answering all other questions.
Statistics has it that AMD rose from ground zero to being a threat to Intel in just two years. And you can tell, Intel is scared. That was 23rd August anyway. Now, they have the best chip on market; the Core 2 Duo. I must say its a really active competition, and neither stays a winner for too long.
AMD 3200+ is not equivalent to the intel p4 3.2 ghz since they have different clock speeds and AMD's CPU naming convention doesn't represent its actual clock speed unlike intel's. the AMD 3200+ performs more like a 2.8ghz p4 and runs at about 2 ghz. here are a couple of links to some test data