Simviation Forum - AMD or Intel?

	Search the archive:

Simviation Main Site | Site Search | Upload Images

Simviation Forum › Computer Hardware & Software Forum › Hardware › AMD or Intel?

(Moderators: Mitch., Fly2e, ozzy72, beaky, Clipper, JBaymore, Bob70, BigTruck)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2

Send Topic

Print

AMD or Intel? (Read 672 times)

Jul 10^th, 2005 at 8:46pm

Corsair Freak Offline
Colonel
Tiskilwa, Illinois, U.S.A.

Gender:
Posts: 1537

Hey all,

I was bored so I decided I would virtually build a new computer at Tigerdirect. When it came to the CPU I was stumped... I didn't know which to pick...AMD... or Intel... which do you think? well, since I don't have any expierence with AMD, I just threw an Intel into the mix. heres the specs on my new computer Grin

Grin

CPU: Intel P4 3.4GHz (775 Socket)
MOBO: Asus P5P800
MEM: Corsair (

) 1GB PC3200
HDD: Maxtor 160GB
PSU: Ultra 500W
GFX: 256MB XFX GeForce 6800GT

should run like lightning... once I get $1500 Cheesy

Cheesy

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Jul 10^th, 2005 at 10:57pm

Gunny04 Offline
Colonel
Who's Better than the
best when nobodys the
best?
Michigan

Gender:
Posts: 2101

Well do you edit or game or both? if its gaming well, the AMD, but if you dont game much and do loads and loads of editing and office work, Intel will do.... Cheers, Gunny

AMD athlon 3800 Venice Socket 939 64 bit at 2.4Ghz, 6100K8MA-RS Foxconn Motherboard, 1gb (2X512) OCZ Platinum PC3200 Ram, EVGA 8800GTS 640MB OC, 500 Watt NZXT psu, and Windows Vista Ultimate Total hard drive space 530gb

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Jul 11^th, 2005 at 12:44am

beaky Offline
Global Moderator
Uhhhh.... yup!
Newark, NJ USA

Gender:
Posts: 14187

I am by no means an expert, but I chose AMD for my machine, and it could be better for the money than the equivalent Intel chip, from what I've heard. It certainly does the job, and stays cool through hours of flight simming. I was just reading an online technical comparison of my chip vs. the equivalent Intel, and the author agreed with me.
But I certainly wouldn't head up at a 3.4 chip, even if it was Intel... Grin

Grin

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Jul 11^th, 2005 at 4:02pm

the_autopilot Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 1359

Depends

for gaming. AMD, no question.

For other stuff, like video editing, office work, mathmatical calculations etc, intel is the way to go. Intel handles multimedia pretty well and does great in synthetic benchmarks, but is easily beaten by AMD in games.

The above only applies to single core CPU's.

For dual-core, AMD rules the market in ALL fields in terms of performence. Intel has no dual core that can match AMD's dual core offerings. Be aware that AMD dual cores are way overpriced and that the best performence for price ratio for dual cores lies with Intel.

Link to sig:&&Click here&&(Cannot post signature here due to current forum restrications on linked images).

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 6:01am

congo Offline
Colonel
Make BIOS your Friend
Australia

Gender:
Posts: 3663

From the reviews and benchtests I've seen, (for single core cpu's), there was no great margin between the equivalent technologies in multimedia anyway....... I mean, it's either gonna take Intel 58 minutes or AMD 61 minutes to process a long movie .......

Unless you actually go out and build a couple comparitive rigs in each genre, then compare them over a range of applications in great detail over time, I doubt many people would ever notice the difference.

Both camps are producing some fantastic hardware these days.

It should also be pointed out that no matter how fast the actual hardware is, the operator is still quite able to screw it all up anyway........ and the largest performance differences between high end systems will most likely be marked by configuration and software installation variations ....... not the hardware itself.

I don't know enough about the dual core cpu technology to comment, but Autopilot's comments are very interesting. This will bode well for AMD unless Intel come up with an equivalent at least.

Mainboard: Asus P5K-Premium, CPU=Intel E6850 @ x8x450fsb 3.6ghz, RAM: 4gb PC8500 Team Dark, Video: NV8800GT, HDD: 2x1Tb Samsung F3 RAID-0 + 1Tb F3, PSU: Antec 550 Basiq, OS: Win7x64, Display: 24" WS LCD

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 6:06am

cobzz Offline
Colonel
Melbourne, Australia

Gender:
Posts: 406

Quote:

Depends

for gaming. AMD, no question.

For other stuff, like video editing, office work, mathmatical calculations etc, intel is the way to go. Intel handles multimedia pretty well and does great in synthetic benchmarks, but is easily beaten by AMD in games.

The above only applies to single core CPU's.

For dual-core, AMD rules the market in ALL fields in terms of performence. Intel has no dual core that can match AMD's dual core offerings. Be aware that AMD dual cores are way overpriced and that the best performence for price ratio for dual cores lies with Intel.

a single core 3.4ghz computer bate a dual core amd athlon dual core, dont know which type

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 8:36am

Mehdi Offline
Colonel
I wish...
London, England

Gender:
Posts: 481

Has to be AMD, even though I sim on Intel setup. AMDs are generally cheaper and much better than Intels.

Probably the only thing I prefer about Intels is their general superiority over AMDs in video/audio applications; I convert a lot of files, mostly from MP3s to OGG for my phone with my Intel comp.

&&&&My Specs&&Intel P4 3.2GHz with HT&&ATi Radeon X800XT&&1GB Corsair RAM&&160GB Maxtor HDD&&17" TFT

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 1:44pm

NWISimmer Ex Member

Quote:

AMD, even though I sim on Intel setup.

Same here, however i chose P4 over AMD as my missus does music editing, and LOTS of digital photo editing.

My first PC was Intel, then 2 AMD Durons in succession, now this one, P4.
Intel for me (and her).
Rob.

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 1:48pm

4_Series_Scania Offline
Colonel
He who laughs last, thinks
slowest.
Stoke on Trent England U.K.

Gender:
Posts: 3638

I've just sold my p4 for an AMD 64 3000+, bang for buck performance , Intel just cannot compete.

For serious uses, Intel is supposedly better, after years of abuse from AMD owning friends, I've converted to the dark side! Grin

Grin

Posting drivel here since Jan 31st, 2002. - That long!

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 5:36pm

the_autopilot Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 1359

Quote:

a single core 3.4ghz computer bate a dual core amd athlon dual core, dont know which type

Not at all.

Single thread apps like games work much better on single core computers b/c singles cores are very fast.

Dual cores are much more powerful than any single core, but each core is running at a much lower clock rate than single cores. Since single threads apps only use a single core, dual cores are at a disadavntage.

Dual cores become powerful with multitasking. For example, you'll be able to game and say, burn a dvd or encode files, with NO loss in performence for the game b/c they will be running on different cores.

Quote:

I don't know enough about the dual core cpu technology to comment, but Autopilot's comments are very interesting. This will bode well for AMD unless Intel come up with an equivalent at least.

You can read moe about AMD's crushing of intel here in a dual core stress test.:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050603/stresstest-03.html
see bottom of page for summary.

Link to sig:&&Click here&&(Cannot post signature here due to current forum restrications on linked images).

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Jul 14^th, 2005 at 10:16am

congo Offline
Colonel
Make BIOS your Friend
Australia

Gender:
Posts: 3663

Thx autopilot Wink

Wink

Mainboard: Asus P5K-Premium, CPU=Intel E6850 @ x8x450fsb 3.6ghz, RAM: 4gb PC8500 Team Dark, Video: NV8800GT, HDD: 2x1Tb Samsung F3 RAID-0 + 1Tb F3, PSU: Antec 550 Basiq, OS: Win7x64, Display: 24" WS LCD

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Jul 14^th, 2005 at 11:25am

bm Offline
Colonel
UK

Gender:
Posts: 1177

Quote:

Dual cores become powerful with multitasking. For example, you'll be able to game and say, burn a dvd or encode files, with NO loss in performence for the game b/c they will be running on different cores.

So why can't we all just save a lot of money just sticking with the one core and not burn dvds at the same time ??? Sounds like a better plan to me lol!!!

IP Logged

Reply #12 - Jul 14^th, 2005 at 1:58pm

Weather_Man Offline
Colonel
TX

Gender:
Posts: 184

Agreed. Dual core has specific benefits. Gaming is not one of them (yet). I'd much prefer an AMD FX to an X2.

In about 5-7 years when dual core is a bit more mainstream and games are coded to take advantage of it fully (with 64bit processing to go with it), I'll go that route. For now, I see no point in buying one but for the bragging rights.

&&

IP Logged

Reply #13 - Jul 15^th, 2005 at 6:26am

the_autopilot Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 1359

Quote:

So why can't we all just save a lot of money just sticking with the one core and not burn dvds at the same time ??? Sounds like a better plan to me lol!!!

For now, that is THE better plan. But for the future, thats a bad plan. Games will begin to take advanage of that second core and use it to process say physics or AI or something. But consider that dual core performence doesn't fall behind single core performence in games by very far. At most, there is a difference of 10 FPS with the fps ranging in the high 60's (coupled with the right gfx card). Performence is pretty similar and dual cores are CHEAPER (a x2 4800 is cheaper than a fx-57), it might be a good idea to go dual core and future proof.

Link to sig:&&Click here&&(Cannot post signature here due to current forum restrications on linked images).

IP Logged

Reply #14 - Jul 15^th, 2005 at 2:06pm

ThePianoMan Ex Member

I myself have a AMD, but I'm not to good with hardware stuff. Tongue

Tongue

IP Logged

Pages: 1 2

Send Topic

Print

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Top of this page

Simviation Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5 AE!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2010. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge