Why AMD? Intel anyone?

Bigtom

Distinguished
Aug 14, 2004
21
0
18,510
0
Why does everyone recommend an AMD Chip for their computers. I have always been an Intel Guy.

I was considering the Pentium D 950 (3.4 Dual-Core) Chip, approx $600

Can Anyone give me some advice

Thanks in advance.
 
The A64 chips on NF4 mainboards are generally a little faster (in nearly all games) in 8 out of 10 various benchmarks, although Intel still is competitive in certain video encoding /decoding benchmarks...

The Dual core X2-3800 (2.0G actual) will prob keep right up with a dual core 3.4D from Intel in 95% of the benchmarks, and do it for $300 less....($300 vs $600)

The Athlon also generates about 20-25 watts less heat...
 

Vascular

Distinguished
Jan 1, 2006
461
0
18,780
0
Here you go if you want to see some benchmarks and games.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/05/the_65_nm_pentium_d_900s_coming_out_party/
 

kitchenshark

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2005
377
0
18,780
0
There's nothing really wrong with the Intel chips.

Most people seem to like the AMD chips because of lower energy consumption and better gaming performance at a lower clock speed. Ah! Also their lower running temps.

Half Life 2 runs quite smooth at 1280x1024 (no AA or AS filtering) and other settings nearly maxed with:
939 3200+ (winchester) stock clock 2.0Ghz
MSI Neo2-FIR
2Gb Patriot 2-3-2-6 DDR400
XFX GeForce 6600GT 128Mb AGP
WD Raptor 36Gb 10k RPM SATA


I haven't kept up with Intel pricing so don't know if the price you quoted is a better deal, but if you're happy with Intel, go for it. Should be a killer rig. :)
 

Bigtom

Distinguished
Aug 14, 2004
21
0
18,510
0
The main purpose of my new computer is going to be for Video Editing.


Do you guys think I should go for an Intel or AMD chip?
 

tylerthedruid

Distinguished
Dec 23, 2005
118
0
18,680
0
AMD has great dual core CPUs as well. Great prices too. Unless you're affixiated with getting DDR2, go AMD.[/list]

I would go AMD if I could reverse time and not buy this goddamned compaq.
 

pat

Splendid
Jan 2, 2001
6,399
0
25,810
19
The main purpose of my new computer is going to be for Video Editing.


Do you guys think I should go for an Intel or AMD chip?
I decided to use AMD in my video system because I could live better with the few minutes it *may* take more to render the final movie than with the heat and noise from fans that would have to throw out the heat make by the CPU (around 65 degrees), the 2 HDD RAID array, the single storage drive, the chipset, the video card and voltage regulators to regulate the 200+ watts the 950D would throw out at idle..

No as much powerfull as the 950 or any dual core, I can run my system with my 3 case fans running half speed, my video card fans running half speed and still having a quiet and cool system.

Seriously, the X2 4800+ will do very good for editing while running full load with only 2 watts more that your 950 running idle. So, tell me which board will have less stress on voltage regulators at full load? Which one will generate les heat overall and consume less power? Which one is likely to throttle down speed if inufficient cooling is used.? Which one will likely make more noise?

I'm not a fanboy, but these argument enough make me using AMD and I have nice rock stable computer that are quiet and fast.. and likely to be more reliable on the long term.. I don't want the heat from the CPU to kill my HDD..
 

tylerthedruid

Distinguished
Dec 23, 2005
118
0
18,680
0
Oh and AMD's overclock great, so you can get a huge deal :). Especially on old 754 semprons.

I try to be nonpartisan, but I find myself hoping that Intel will move into the skillet/frying pan market rather than making CPUs. So far, nobody has made a skillet that can heat up as fast as an intel CPU; how do they do it!?
 

dragosgorjan

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2006
72
0
18,630
0
I'm a Intel CPU(P4 630) owner..an with 3 aditional fans(full air flow installed) i have 34 C idle..in apllication 48-50 C..the noise is lower-medium.
But AMD its not having just 64 or X2...Amd its having Athlon Sempron Barton Duron all of them have a heat problems and bad construction majority at 0,13nm or higher 0,180nm.A friend of mine with a Barton 2000Mhz real speed have 62 C idle and in apllication....so AMD is only the moment processor wich is 64 and a lower price.
But when i'm thinking at lower price i compare with non-quality manufacture,fabrication or materials..because the fiability its a reason from why i choose Intel.
AMD is faster in benchmarks but not radicaly faster..it is with some points faster anyway apart from this we are free to choose from a lot of criterias
not just from the benchmarks.
 

LazyGarfield

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2006
62
0
18,630
0
I'm a Intel CPU(P4 630) owner..an with 3 aditional fans(full air flow installed) i have 34 C idle..in apllication 48-50 C..the noise is lower-medium.
I got X2-4400 with X1800XT and have 29°C idle temp and 40°C at full load. Got 2 Tower Fans (one blowing into the tower one out, big silent ones). I still wonder if the CPU´s temp.-sensor is working correctly :)
But AMD its not having just 64 or X2...Amd its having Athlon Sempron Barton Duron all of them have a heat problems and bad construction majority at 0,13nm or higher 0,180nm.A friend of mine with a Barton 2000Mhz real speed have 62 C idle and in apllication....so AMD is only the moment processor wich is 64 and a lower price.
Yea but you are comparing older CPU´s to actual ones. In the past you could have made fried eggs on an AMD-CPU (beginning from 500 MHz) but things have changed.
But when i'm thinking at lower price i compare with non-quality manufacture,fabrication or materials..because the fiability its a reason from why i choose Intel.
Uh? How would you like to prove that?
AMD is faster in benchmarks but not radicaly faster..it is with some points faster anyway apart from this we are free to choose from a lot of criterias not just from the benchmarks.
Well even an equal result with benchmarks doesnt help Intel since AMD has the better Value.

And speaking of quality... My intel boxed cooler was loud like an airplane and I had 64°C (full load). The AMD-boxed cooler is quiet AND got a great performance (for a boxed one). Comparing this I´d say Intel is a cheap one who just sells expensive.

In terms of performance Intel would maybe have a slight advantage with video editing but that strongly depends on the program used. Considering the price/performance ratio Intel is eating dust.
 

TabrisDarkPeace

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2006
1,378
0
19,280
0
Even with the Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 (with 4 isolated threads now) a Pentium D EE (2 cores, each HyperThreaded) has far higher value, and similar performance when encoding video than my AMD Opteron 270 (2 CPUs, each with 2cores).

I would go with the Pentium D or Pentium D EE for video encoding.

Grab Windows Media Encoder x64 Edition 9 Series if you plan to run Windows XP x64 (be it via AMD64 or Intel EM64T) from: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9series/encoder/default.aspx ; too. If you've got 4 CPUs (virtual or otherwise, such as Pentium-D EE) you'll benefit heaps.

I'll recommend an AMD Athlon64 X2 / Opteron (dual-core) series when they give the best performance, and / or best value.... but in this case the Pentium D EE (now that 4 thread versions of encoders are showing up) comes so close to an Opteron 270 at half the price, if not outperforms it... Then it doesn't justify doubling your cost to get roughly the same performance.

If a CODEC or application runs in 2-4 'isolated' threads heavy in SSE2(+) then it will benefit from an Intel (dual-core, hyperthreaded, or both) CPU dramatically. AMD does have very good SSE2(+) performance in single isolated threads (or 2 isolated threads on the Athlon64 X2), but for Video Encoding they don't hold a candle (price : performance wise) to the Pentium D / D EE.

Summary:

You're after high MFLOPS (SSE2) here, but not high MIPS..... the Intel option gives high MFLOPS (SSE2) at a lower cost if (and only if) the application / codec runs in 2 (or more) isolated threads..... and pretty much all of them do for Video Encoding, it was the first major market they (Intel) targeted the technology at.

Contact Info available at: http://users.on.net/~darkpeace

If you like I'll let you RealVNC (Remote Desktop) connect to my PC and watch (but not use keyboard / mouse) me encode a 1 hour video, check Task Manager, CPU load out, etc on my Opteron 270. I'm in a GMT+10 (AEST) time zone though, but the weekend (Sat Midnight) starts here in 1 hour : 10 min apx from the time I've made this last edit..

Remeber I've got the AMD Opteron 270 'option', but I am offering to let you see first hand (via remote) why I recommend the Intel for Video Encoding.

At least that way you can put any doubts to rest. Esp on 2-pass encoding jobs... [:p]
 

dragosgorjan

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2006
72
0
18,630
0
[/quote]Yea but you are comparing older CPU´s to actual ones. In the past you could have made fried eggs on an AMD-CPU (beginning from 500 MHz) but things have changed

But you make comparation just with Intel Prescot its not the only one CPU that Intel is offering, the list its have a entire gama to choose for comparation Cedar Mill ,Presler ,Smithfield ,Gallatin, Northwood...
In a benchmark(for games) there are a lots of factors to decide the results RAMVideo CardFSB and the CPU.
Its very strange the fact that when we say Intel say Prescott
AMD say 64
To beat a 64X2 you need just a P840 EE or P955 EE or others.
In my opinion AMD 64 its makeing the first step on a large scale where Intel is in front from quite a while.
Because Intel is with all the CPU-s in the whole time having constant results good,bad, AMD is just having 64 from a few months.
But i'am happy to hear from all the owners of 64 that AMD its makeing progress.

And for the good quality,will see in time fiability and performance.
 
"A friend of mine with a Barton 2000Mhz real speed have 62 C idle and in apllication....so AMD is only the moment processor wich is 64 and a lower price.
"

He should have taken the protective tape off the top of the core first! :)
 

conroe

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2006
523
0
18,990
2
If you go with a 955 or 975 cipset it's looking like Intels Conroe core chips will work with a BIOS update (?) Intel has said there is a 5x performance to watt increase with the new design over prescott/northwood.

With a 939, your stuck without new cpus. AM2 is getting 65nm. AMD says 30-40% increase in performance with thier prosses.

Intel looks to be the winner come july in all areas AMD is now. AMD is going to have a fight on it's hands.
 

pat

Splendid
Jan 2, 2001
6,399
0
25,810
19
There will always be 3 side on this story. The Intel fanboy side, the AMD fanboy side and the truth.. And the truth I'm seeing now is that the system with the CPU you are looking at would throw out 283w at 100% load while a system with a 4800+ will throw out 203w.

Those are from the link posted here. Even a lesser X2 wil perform good and wont be harder on power that any Intel system

And you fanboy of all brand, stop making fool of yourself. This guy want dual core. he talked about the D950. So, all your stories about barton and northwood, while maybe being true.. and who cares, as those CPU are no more produced, are not making a big impression here. But anyway, my father is stronger than your's anyway...


And to conclude the article:
Although the new Pentium D 900 series clearly is better than the 800 family and the firm finally manages to come close to AMD, we would still recommend an AMD based system to any conscious computer buyer due to advantages offered in terms of both performance and power consumption.
 

crazywheels

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2006
334
0
18,780
0
Intel is ok for computing, but you could cook eggs inside of a intel machine because they run so hot, almost need liquid cooling for an intel machine

AMD faster on most applications, don't run near as hot as a intel cpu, and the best part they are cheaper. more bang for the buck

one of the reasons that AMD is better for games because the memory controler is built the on the processor itself than having to go through the chipset
 

tylerthedruid

Distinguished
Dec 23, 2005
118
0
18,680
0
If you go with a 955 or 975 cipset it's looking like Intels Conroe core chips will work with a BIOS update (?) Intel has said there is a 5x performance to watt increase with the new design over prescott/northwood.
5X? Intel has said many things, as has dell. Check out my my post about Dell's SLI in GFX forums.
 

lost

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2004
227
0
18,680
0
I'm a Intel CPU(P4 630) owner..an with 3 aditional fans(full air flow installed) i have 34 C idle..in apllication 48-50 C..the noise is lower-medium.
I have a P4 640 it runs at 32C idle and 44C load. All these AMD people continually cr_p on how hot the P4 is. "You can cook an egg on it" what rubbish the people in this forum talk!
 

xSunnYx

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2005
83
0
18,630
0
I love AMD, don't get me wrong.

What i also love, is Pentium-M processors, those were like Pentium 4's were supposed to be.. more performance/watts. So i actually believe Conroe will be a good competition vs AMD..
 

tylerthedruid

Distinguished
Dec 23, 2005
118
0
18,680
0
I love AMD, don't get me wrong.

What i also love, is Pentium-M processors, those were like Pentium 4's were supposed to be.. more performance/watts. So i actually believe Conroe will be a good competition vs AMD..
Is the conroe the new intel coming out?
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY