Comparing AMD & Intel CPU's

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I've been browsing and haven't been able to find what I want, but does
anyone know of a good site that compares both CPU makers side by side ....

like AMD 64 3000 is comparable to Intel P4 3.0 gigahertz.

I'm shopping for CPU's and want to make sure I get the fastest processor for
my money.

 

[Jerry]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

While checking CPUs be aware that you will also have to check out
motherboards as one that supports AMD won't support Intel and you search for
the fastest CPU will also have to take into account the efficiency/speed of
the overall motherboard too.

"Shawn Finnie" <shawn@email.com> wrote in message
news:OAxPmMv7EHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I've been browsing and haven't been able to find what I want, but does
> anyone know of a good site that compares both CPU makers side by side ....
>
> like AMD 64 3000 is comparable to Intel P4 3.0 gigahertz.
>
> I'm shopping for CPU's and want to make sure I get the fastest processor
> for
> my money.
>
>

 

[Jerry]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

The fastest cpu on the market right now is the AMD 64 - which, as it's name
implies, is a 64-bit processor.

You woulld have to use the 64-bit version of Windows. Don't know of other
possible issues.

"Jerry" <NoSpamChiefZeke@MSN.com> wrote in message
news:uvaEzSv7EHA.2516@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> While checking CPUs be aware that you will also have to check out
> motherboards as one that supports AMD won't support Intel and you search
> for the fastest CPU will also have to take into account the
> efficiency/speed of the overall motherboard too.
>
> "Shawn Finnie" <shawn@email.com> wrote in message
> news:OAxPmMv7EHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> I've been browsing and haven't been able to find what I want, but does
>> anyone know of a good site that compares both CPU makers side by side
>> ....
>>
>> like AMD 64 3000 is comparable to Intel P4 3.0 gigahertz.
>>
>> I'm shopping for CPU's and want to make sure I get the fastest processor
>> for
>> my money.
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Er, no.

Regular 32 bit Windows XP installs and runs fine on an Athlon64 machine,
such as the one being used to write this. The 64 bit version of XP that will
support the Athlon 64 is available only in beta form at this time, and it
may be a bit lacking in terms of driver availability. (Last I read,
Microsoft has not given information on the final version of that OS beyond
"the first half of 2005". I doubt that means that it'll be available
tomorrow, 1 January.) The currently available 64 bit Windows is for Intel
Itanium systems, and only available for purchase with such a system.

In response to the original poster's question, the AMD performance rating is
supposed to be roughly equivalent to a P4 of a specified clock frequency.
(You may notice, though, that Intel is moving away from identifying its
processor simply by clock frequency. The newer LG775 chips have model
numbers.)

The "which is faster for the money" question has no simple answer. An AMD
FX55 CPU (the fastest Athlon64 at the moment) is very expensive; so is an
Intel P4 Extreme Edition CPU. The Athlon64 is supposed to be unbeatable for
gaming; hyperthreaded P4s are supposed to be good for video editing.

My own choice for my latest upgrade was an Athlon 64 3500+ (Socket 939) on
an Asus A8V mainboard. It replaced a P4 2.6c that was overclocked to 3.25
GHz on an Asus P4P800 board. I have no regrets.

Address scrambled. Replace nkbob with bobkn.

"Jerry" <NoSpamChiefZeke@MSN.com> wrote in message
news:ei9lnO47EHA.1404@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> The fastest cpu on the market right now is the AMD 64 - which, as it's
> name implies, is a 64-bit processor.
>
> You woulld have to use the 64-bit version of Windows. Don't know of other
> possible issues.
>
(snip)
>