amd vs intel

[blinker]

is there any difference between this to proccesors.
i'm talking abou bus speed more realible etc.

[Budfred]

Probably not. There are differences between the 2 companies at any point in time, but they are constantly catching up with each other, so the distinctions blur over time. The only consistent difference seems to be that AMD is cheaper....

[Deagle]

Yup AMD is cheaper and does more work than the Intel. Albeit Intel processor is the fatest right now though. Then again I like AMD processors because of the ease of OCing it.

[killercow]

AMD is cheaper I agree. Also they are better for overclocking. My athalon XP 1800+ has worked nicely for overclocking.

[Steve]

AMD is cheaper, but Intel has the bigger market share. Think about it.

Amd runs hotter than Intel.

Intel has a feature where, if the processor starts to over heat, it throttles down to a safe speed avoiding damage. AMD doesn't.

When Intel labels a chip 2.4Ghz, that's what it runs at. Amd labels their chips in a very misleading way. Their 2500+ runs at something like 2.1Ghz.

AMD compares their chips to Intel. Intel doesn't have to compare their chips.

Intel has an 800Mhz FSB. AMD doesn't.

All that being said, an Escort will get you to work and back just like a Mercedes will.

[RPB1]

intel all the time more exspensive than amd but worth every penny my advice if you go intel make sure you get intel chipset motherboard my adice dont cut corners

[superdrumr]

Please, Intel chips are only faster because Intel gives them a higher speed rating. MHz these days means nothing. An AMD chip running at 2.1GHz runs faster and cooler than an Intel chip running at 3.1GHz. These days you have to check benchmark results to get truly reliable results. If you do you'll find that AMD wins in almost every benchmark and are less expensive. Nuff Said.
And steve, AMD runs cooler than an intel. Plus the only reason they label their chips 3000+, 3100+, etc. Is because intel does not label their chips truthfully, otherwise Intel's 3GHz chips would actually run at 3 Ghz. AMD only labels the chips as they do so that people dont think that Intel chips are much faster. Learn your stuff next time.

[killercow]

I have noticed that a 2 GHz labeled AMD vs a LABELED 2GHz Pentium the AMD (athalon XP) has won out. Just my 2 cents.

[superdrumr]

just more support to my argument

[Steve]

Heh heh...I was wondering if anyone was going to take the bait.

AMD runs cooler than an intel.

I doubt it. If that's true, you're the only one who knows about it. Where did you hear that?

intel does not label their chips truthfully

Do you have any evidence of this? Here is what Tom's Hardware had to say on the subject...

Conclusion: The Athlon XP3200+ isn't a Hit, But a Paper Tiger

"The Athlon XP 3200+ has laid claim to the title of "Fastest Desktop CPU." But in reality, though, it is something entirely different: the mighty value champ has degraded into a pusillanimous paper tiger.

The benchmark tests, on the other hand, leave no room for doubt: XP 2800+ would have been a more realistic label for the processor, which wouldn't have been a problem for anyone, if AMD still wants to go toe-to-toe with Intel's P4. But the 3200 label is much too aggressive - especially since Intel will be introducing an increased FSB clock for its lower-clocked P4 CPUs."

When I look at computers in a store (online or brick and mortar) I notice, in general, that the "bargin" computers have celerons and AMDs in them. The high end machines have Intel P4s. Two of the three builders that I know personally, will use nothing but Intel becuse they cause less problems. Problems = time = money.

Read through the mass of info that's out there about the two companies. In general, Intel is depicted as the high end chip. Cooler running, more stable. AMD is depicted as the DIYers choice and the bargin chip.

If you have some info that shows otherwise, I'd be glad to take a look at it.

[drewbob]

If I had a couple grand to spend on my next system, I'd quite likely go Intel. How bout if I had 800? There's no way a P4 would end up in my box. You gotta admit that the Athlon XP is the "bang for the buck" award winner. And if Jack has an Intel xxxx system that's 20% faster than Jimmy's Athlon setup, he gives the ol fsb & multipliers a little switcheroo, and viola! More speed on tap. I'm not saying that the pentium isn't overclockable either, but you hear of lots of people pushing their Athlons a long ways. On air.
And Steve I don't think it's fair to liken the Athlon to an Escort. I think even the Celeron ranks higher than an Escort.

[Budfred]

If I had $2000 to blow on a new system, I would go with the new 64bit AMD chip and lots of really good components.... And I wouldn't mess around with overclocking....

[Steve]

Well said drewbob. The Escort to Mercedes comparison was an exaggeration to make a point. Both AMD and Intel chips will run a computer. I just think that Intel chips will do it with more features and dependability. Just an opinion.

[malcore]

Could I maybe offer an unbiased opinion??

I have never really leaned one way or another (except when I only had ONE system for reference).


I have two very similar systems. One is based around a P4 2.8 GHz with a 133x4 (533) Mhz FSB and the other is based around an AthlonXP 2800 Barton with a 166x2(333) MHz FSB.

Both systems have almost identical peripherals, 9700 Pro, Audigy 2, 80 Gig WD HDD, CDRW, DVD ROM, 550 watt PSU, WinXP Pro.Almost identical heatsinks, SLK 900U on the P4 and SLK 800A on the Athlon. Both in LIan-Li aluminum cases with identical fan setup.

They are not just different chipsets, the timings (FSB, RAM) are quite different. The P4 uses 32 bit RDRAM (RIMM4200) and the Athlon is using dual DDR 400(PC3200) underclocked to DRR 333 (PC2700).

Heat

This I found interesting. The P4 does idle at a lower temp, about 29-30 degrees. The Athlon idles at about 35 degrees. When both are going full steam in a game or with something like Prime95 running, then the P4 hits about 45 degrees, and the Athlon never rises above 40. Who is the winner here? Hard to say.

Stability

Intel has a slight edge because they manufacture their own chipsets for the P4. That said, I have found both systems to be extremely reliable. For me, I can't say one is more stable than the other.

Speed

Intels DO run at their rated speed. AMD's naming policy can be confusing, but I don't know if it is misleading. These two systems benchmark almost equally. The Athlon system will nudge by the P4 system for gaming, especially in CPU intensive gaming benchmarks. The P4 will nudge by in some office and multimedia apps. Benchmarking aside, I notice no difference when gaming or doing other tasks.

Pricing

AMD may win here. When I bought my chips they were fairly new, and I actually paid the SAME price. Now, I believe the AMD is about $70 cheaper at Newegg. Cost/performance ratio. AMD DOES win here.

I feel both are very stable, very capable chips. I think Intel sounds more stable because they make their own chipsets. I don't think higher price means higher quality. Top end P4 systems offered by system builders?? Would you rather sell a high end P4 sytem that was more expensive than an equally powerful AMD system?? If I were a system builder, I would rather sell the more expensive one.

Everyone will be partial. I used to only have an Intel system and of course felt they were better. I have both now, and they are so close in stability, function and speed that I can't discern a difference. Only about $70 difference now.

Of course, Intel now has the 800 MHz platform with dual DDR, Hyperthreading and clockspeeds over 3 GHz. My third system is based on one of these platforms. It leaves the other 2 systems well behind. Maybe just comparing CPUs is not fair anymore, because you really need to compare platforms as well. Right now, for raw power, Intel is in the lead.

[superdrumr]

If you look at most benchmarks, hyperthreading doesnt help in most apps, because most apps are not optimized for use in a dual processor system. If it only wants to use one processor, system performance can actually be decreased because of the fewer number of threads available.

[anto]

Which is best for video editing and production - AMD seems to be popular for gaming - I was looking at a P4 26 or an Athlon 2800+ (AMD is cheaper)

thanks, Antaine.

[Abbadon]

If I may steal Malcore's words here:

Originally posted by malcore
Everyone will be partial. I used to only have an Intel system and of course felt they were better. I have both now, and they are so close in stability, function and speed that I can't discern a difference. Only about $70 difference now.

Of course, Intel now has the 800 MHz platform with dual DDR, Hyperthreading and clockspeeds over 3 GHz. My third system is based on one of these platforms. It leaves the other 2 systems well behind. Maybe just comparing CPUs is not fair anymore, because you really need to compare platforms as well. Right now, for raw power, Intel is in the lead.

And I think this is still true.
Of course, since then AMD has released it's 64bit platform, but pricewise that is a big "no no" I think. Prices from both manufacturers have changed somewhat regardless, 'cause time has past.

My advice when making this choice would be:
- For gaming: go AMD, after all, tens of thousands of gamers can't be wrong
- If money is a major issue: go AMD
- If money is less of an issue, and you don't want a major gaming machine, intell is your choice. It may carry some extra stability (due to own chipsets) and less heat problems, which is a nice bonus.


Good luck!

Abbadon

[superdrumr]

I couldnt agree more

[inmate]

AmD doesn't have Core 2 duo right? cuz i couldn't find any on newegg.

[kiosk]

Originally Posted by inmate

AmD doesn't have Core 2 duo right? cuz i couldn't find any on newegg.

You do realize you're replying to a 5 year old thread right?

[bassman]

Originally Posted by kiosk

You do realize you're replying to a 5 year old thread right?

Technically it is only a little over 4 years old, but who's counting

Here is a bit of info on AMD's multi-core processors. Since "Core 2 duo" is an Intel trademark, no, AMD does not have them. If you care to discuss this subject, I recommend starting a new thread in "Core hardware"
oh yea, Welcome to the PC Guide!

[wickedestman]

WOW! its like a war zone in here.. thank God its clean.

My take on this subject is...

I DONT KNOW!

I had a Athlon2600+ XP and all the years i had it.. they say it should run at 1800MHz.. i never knew that until recently. I ran it all the time at 2.13MHz and with 1 exhaust fan and a small cooling fan w/ heat sink. It never ever failed. In fact the mobo failed.

I have a Dell 2.4GHz P4, this i thought would have run faster then the above, but it didnt, but this isnt just it, that actually got fried year before, with the same kind of usage, maybe less because my dad has been using it about 3 years now for his work and my AMD was for more CPU and GPU intense running.

they might be different core speeds but it seems I should really be buying AMD! but sad to say i have a little favouritism to Intel. Since the advent of PC Guide, i got introduced to all these other sites, if you watch, an AMD 6400+ X2 is around 160USD and a core2duo, e6750 2.66Ghz is around 189USD. the e6750 will beat the X2 but, the margin isnt so big. So i guess i would agree with some that for the price AMD is the way, but for me its maybe Intel!

[stepfinder]

Right now the AMD is cheaper, and there seems little difference between them but It is said tha intel is better in the long run.

[George Hallam]

there seems little difference between them

what!!

compare Intels fastest CPU to AMD's
QX9770 Vs X2 6400 (its faster than the X4 9700) its about 70% more!!

[rond36]

Here are some charts that will give you some idea of the relative performance of most of the Intel and AMD chips.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html