Which is quicker amd or intel

[Rabidpeanut]

I dont recall saying that nvidia was unstable? I think i am missing something cause po5esto didn't say anything about unstable nvidia cards either.

¿Que?

 

[ChipDeath]

Back in the sub-1Ghz athlon Vs P3 days you could only really get Motherboards based on 2* chipset manufacturers: SIS or VIA. SIS were cheap, so manufacturers used cheap components with their chipsets, resulting in lower quality (but cheap) motherboards. VIA chipsets were just horrid. Horrid Horrid Nasty Horrible. Nasty Nasty Crashtastic POS. VIA never admitted to being a bunch of monkeys who wouldn't know a stable chipset if one was shoved up their arses. That didn't stop them from taking various underhanded steps to try to corner the market (I forget exactly what they did, but it was all a bit dishonarable)

Intel however have always made excellent chipsets. Very stable, usually quite overclockable too. These have always been the mainstream chipset choice for Intel chips.

The net result was everyone thought AMDs were horribly unstable, because 80% of AMD systems were struggling along with a sucky VIA chipset, whereas 90% of Intel systems had an intel chipset, so were nice and stable.

However, it was Nvidia to the rescue when they released the Nforce2 chipset for Athlon XPs. It was better performing, more stable and far more overclockable than anything that had ever been available for AMD chips.

So, after that little bit of history...

I think i am missing something cause po5esto didn't say anything about unstable nvidia cards either.

He didn't, he merely pointed out that Nvidia's chipsets are as stable as anything, and AMD have never been to blame for stability problems.

A bit of waffle, but a good way to waste 10 minutes at work...


*=Yes I know you could get AMD chipsets too, but they were never that popular and AMD were too small to keep up with both CPUs and chipsets.... Did ALi make Athlon chipsets? I think they did too but don't remember much there.... Ah well, the basic premise is still correct...

 

[mpjesse]

However, it was Nvidia to the rescue when they released the Nforce2 chipset for Athlon XPs. It was better performing, more stable and far more overclockable than anything that had ever been available for AMD chips.

This is why I don't quite understand their purchase of ULi. nVidia is clearly the market leader in AMD chipsets. What the hell do they need ULI for? ULi (in my opinion) is lightyears behind nVidia. Granted they didn't pay much ($52 million I think), but nVidia seems to have a history of buying defunct chip companies (3dFX for example, for which they paid $70 million). When nVidia bought 3DFX... it was kind of like "why?" At the time everyone knew 3DFX was doomed. They bet too much on FSAA. The only thing nVidia really got out of it was excellent FSAA tech. And <maybe> SLI. (if you'll remember, 3DFX had an SLI technology before anyone else). But it seems to me nVidia could have developed FSAA and SLI w/o the purchase of 3DFX. And they certainly could have done it for less than $70 million.

Yes I know you could get AMD chipsets too, but they were never that popular and AMD were too small to keep up with both CPUs and chipsets.... Did ALi make Athlon chipsets? I think they did too but don't remember much there.... Ah well, the basic premise is still correct...

Yeah ALi made chipsets for Athlon's. And they were actually decent. They didn't have the performance of the AMD or VIA chipsets, but they were more stable than the VIA chipsets. Correction, they were more stable than VIA's drivers. Everyone calls VIA's chipsets crap... but it was really their drivers that sucked. The chipsets were fine.

-mpjesse

 

[linux_0]

Do yourself a favor and get an AMD64 Socket 939 or Opteron 1xx Socket 939 with a nice nForce4 motherboard, from ASUS, Abit, DFI, etc and nice RAM like Corsair XMS, OCZ, etc and a decent GeForce 6600GT PCI-E and you will be very happy!

Intel has temporarily won the crown back however AMD will eat their lunch in about 0-4 weeks!

I have owned many AMD and Intel computers since 1985 and have pretty much always preferred AMD.

 

[Rabidpeanut]

And only now you warn me about buying a via...

 

[linux_0]

VIA is good too but nForce4 is better.

I actually have 2 nice VIA 939 boards and they work fine.

 

[Rabidpeanut]

Then the next board i will get will be an nforce, no more via trouble for me.

 

[fishmahn]

[quote="mpjesseThis is why I don't quite understand their purchase of ULi. nVidia is clearly the market leader in AMD chipsets. What the hell do they need ULI for?

-mpjesse[/quote]
Its not what they get out of ULi, its what their competitors don't get. Think about it - with ATI joining the chipset market in a big way it suddenly got a lot more crowded. One of them was probably going to disappear somehow - merger, buyout or shut down. VIA and ATI are too big to grab - there's no way - it's like HP & IBM merging... but if either of them were to snatch up the excellent tech of Uli... that would worry me if I were nVidia. Now they're not worried because they own Uli.

Mike.

 

[tvfreak]

You looked at them there Zeons and Itaniums...and Craniums...

Ok so what do I go with? OPTY 170, 175, x2 4400 or intel? I do game but i do other things as well. I'am not a hard core gamer. I do plan on OCing in the future(couple of years). HELP me. Anyone??? :twisted:

 

[linux_0]

This:

http://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/Wishlist/WishShareShow.asp?ID=1840158

😀

AMD all the way!

I own about 10 Intel PIIs and PIIIs but never bought any P4s because they suck.

 

[DuxSyagrius]

It really depends on what segment you are talking about. When it comes to the mobile segment, Intel wins hands down in terms of absolute performance. But, then again, the Pentium M is like twice as expensive as the turion and will remain so forever since the Pentium M is Intel's defacto flagship product. When it comes to the value segment, AMD's sempron64 is head and shoulders beyond Intel and will remain so probobly forever since the Sempron is going 939 next year. I dont think there has ever deen such a disparity in performance between two chip lines. The celeron is so god awful. In the mainstream line I dont think there is much of a difference to the untrained eye. The real difference is in VALUE. AMD chips are a few bucks cheaper at every performance level. Whats more, intel chips cost more to operate day in, day out. Over the course of a few years, and AMD chip will pay for itself compared to an intel solution in terms of electric bills. If you take the A64 3000 and the P4 3ghz CPUs and couple it with a 7800 GTX, no one is going to notice the difference. Honestly. Who is going to miss 50 fps when you are already pushing 90+? When it comes to video encoding, the P4 will win hands down. But who will miss 20-30 minutes in the middle of the night? (thats when I encode video) You wouldnt even be awake. The bottom line is that one chip is simply cheaper than the other and just a better value. Performance is in the eye of the beholder. But I will say that, one has to be amazed to see a chip clocked 1.2 ghz slower keeping up with a faster chip. Its like, "shouldnt that 3 ghz chip be alot faster?"

 

[apache_lives]

Intel VS AMD - never ends.

AMDs are usually cheaper and within 10% performance (either way) of a competing Intel Product and untill prescott Intels were usually colder, and AMD has always held a better backward compatibility.

AMD has lost a few wars - the Days of P2, and the last was when Intel released the P4 C class - in some of the benchmarks the P4c 2400 ate the AMD Athlon XP 3000 and 3200 especially in video benchmarks (prolly optimised for intels) where as now even Intel optimised software runs better on A64's.

Reliability - Athlon XP's - if your heatsink came off or didnt get mounted correctly your cpu is toast, bios support for thermal shut down was an option not regulation.

As for Intel Pentium M's - they could have the potential to rip AMD at its own game - Heat, Clock for Clock Performance and overall Performance - in six months conroe arrives.

In the end, competition brings good prices for us, dont buy a cpu by brand buy by whats faster per $, or more efficent for your usage.

 

[DuxSyagrius]

I dont know apache. From what I have read, Conroe will be a hybrid netburst/yonah product. It will take the longer pipeline and higher clockspeed of the prescott and the efficiency and power consumption of yonah and put it together. So clock speeds will be lower than the P4 but higher than yonah. Heat disspiation will be lower than the P4 but higher than yonah. I think the higher latency L2 cache (than yonah) and the still lengthy pipeline (compared to yonah) will result in an improved product but still not as good as an A64. It could have lower clock speeds (affecting video encoding and its ilk) and a still inferior FPU co CPU. We cannot say for sure now, but I think you will see this:

Now: A64 3000 is equivalent to a 3ghz P4
Soon: A64 3000 is equivalent to a 2.2 ghz conroe

Think of it this way. The Pentium M duo @ 2ghz is slightly less powerful than a X2 3800 @ 2ghz. If you mix in P4 architecture that is less powerful clock for clock than the A64, you get what? A slightly less powerful chip. Albeit a chip that is an improvement over the P4, runs cooler, and COULD be less expensive (but I doubt that) It is a step in the right direction though.

 

[Ninjax]

AMD FANBOYS, all of ya

Maybe it's quicker who knows, I'd argue Intel is more stable however. At least that's what my past experience tells me. I need stability more than speed.

Yep we maybe AMD fan boys..or AMDroids or whatever u may call us...but the matter of the fact is that AMD is far more stable than an intel and gone are the days of instabilty with an AMD...

 

[DD_Jay_AZ]

Past trends are irrelevant pretty much, the field is too dynamic at this point.

Currently:
Intel is very linear in their processing power, good if your doing one thing, like converting a video, compressing a file. But one thing at a time, The current logic doesn't support multi-tasking very well. This is why HyperThreading came about, to try and improve upon this and allow more to be done per clock cycle. Past "multi-core" technology hasn't really been that profound from Intel. The newest CPU they just released does show signs of change and improvement though. They also run much hotter, this will change hopefully with the 65nm wafers.

AMD is focusing more on results right now. The end result of general windows use, game play, multi-tasking, etc, runs much faster on an Athlon 64 based system. Part of this is because the memory controller lies in the CPU now, allowing for direct access to needed data. It's almost like a huge, public, L3 cache. AMD has experience doing this well, if you remember the K6-2+ and K6-3 line. The current A64 X2 line of dual-core chips from AMD seem to be much more effective at sharing the load, even on applications not written for dual-cores specifically. The Athlon 64's run noteably cooler and consume far less power, this is because of the slower clock speed and the effective use of the 90nm wafer process. The "Cool n' Quiet" dynamic clocking ability even furthers this.

Either way, sheer electron speed ratings (Mhz) are becoming more irrelevant. They may take meaning again one day, who knows. The scene as it's become is more about how much the processor can do effectively during a cycle. AMD has been researching and developing ways to advance this for awhile, they are ahead of the curve because of it. Intel is just now starting to do so, so they have some catch-up to do, but rest assured, they will focus on doing so.

 

[raven_87]

I'm not able to read all the posts due to time constraints (maybe later guys)
but I'm going to throw out my 2cents.

To answer your first question: If you looking @ just clock frequencies, Intel wins...but you cant do that. Athlons process more instructions per clock cycle (by far) while consuming less power...little finness I'd say.

AMD vs Intel depends upon...

Budget
Preformance needs
Application preference.

Example: My Northwood @ 2600mhz outpaces my 3200+ in media (video or audio) encoding. Then again, I turn around...I see a much larger preformance for gaming, file compession, benchmarks, and power consumption when compared to any other Intel CPU I own (I dont have anything Dothan based yet).

The overall winner, yes, I'm going to say AMD. However I still love my little northwood, but their quite hard to fine as Prescott rules the roost of P4's. If you looking at Dual Core - no disrespect, but Intel's response was a joke. Not only did they remove their biggest advantage(HT) from everything but the EE *aka* rip-off edition...but the wattage they burn through is amazing. Not to mention the instability problems with NF4 chipsets (I'm not to sure if thats been worked out, somebody fill in with more info about that) (Why did they leave speed step and powersave features out of the 900 is beyond me) Then you have the HT vunerability if your running FreeBSD...I dont even feel like elaborating on that.

But, AMD is a little overprice IMHO. (Anybody remember the $30 Duron?)
Semperons' yes, a little more what we should have (lower prices) but they have locked multipliers...so its a trade off.
So, my suggestion...Athlon64, dont wait for M2, becuase 939 isnt going for discount, its going to be phased out.

If not, find a good 915i board....pick up a Dothan, 2mb L2 cache ( I wish they'd up the L1 in P4 like they did Dothan) really really low wattage use.
(Talking 45watts max) and when evenly clocked with an A64, can outpase it in most 32bit apps. (Do they make 64bit extensions for Dothan yet?)
Then there's Yonah...but thats dual core.

Up to you....Athlon 64.....or if you dead on "Intel Inside" - Dothan is the only way to go.

 

[Rabidpeanut]

I LIKED the fact that my computer could explode at any second. Made me play a bit less.