NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I'm upgrading my computer sometime around Christmas, and I've done a whole bunch of research on computer parts. However, I'm wondering if "Intel Inside" has managed to convince you, or the unadvertised foe is your choice.

I'd take AMD anyday over Intel. I'm an AMD diehard though, so it's kinda unfair for me to make such a comment =) I believe AMD is cheaper and of higher quality, but it all depends on what you are going to do with the machine.

i bought a pentium pro once only to find a few months later, that intel would abandon socket 8 in favor of their cheap slut 1 tech. i hate intel for this.

I always thought AMD was cheaper, and Intel ... richer.

AMD is better at 'Unpredictable' Applications like games.
Intel is better at 'Predictable' Applications like image rendering and media incoding.
AMD is better at predicatable apps than Intel is at unpredictable ones. Dual-core AMD processors are much better than Intel processors. Dual-core Intels over heat too much. AMD has plans on a new socket (M2) for next year and Quad core processors for 2007. The Quad cores sound cool, up to 8 processors (32 cores) will be supported on one mobo.

AMD chips tend to be the better choice for most users.

Well, I'm upgrading my computer sometime around Christmas, and I've done a whole bunch of research on computer parts. However, I'm wondering if "Intel Inside" has managed to convince you, or the unadvertised foe is your choice.

That depends. If money is no object then Intel is usually the better choice. However, when you take price into account, AMD offers you much more bang for your buck (a $300 AMD processor will be much better than a $300 Intel processor for example). So, unless you are getting the latest and greatest processor running at the fastest speed it has shipped with, you will almost always get more performance by buying the AMD.

That depends. If money is no object then Intel is usually the better choice. However, when you take price into account, AMD offers you much more bang for your buck (a $300 AMD processor will be much better than a $300 Intel processor for example). So, unless you are getting the latest and greatest processor running at the fastest speed it has shipped with, you will almost always get more performance by buying the AMD.
Really, I've heard if money is no object AMD is the better choice.

Really, I've heard if money is no object AMD is the better choice.
If money's no object, then the brand is irellevant. You'll just go buy the meanest bag of CPUs on the market.

For us mortals though, AMD is usually the better choice. Still, if you're not a big gamer, then Intel still rules the 32bit apps.
That said, there's not much point in going for 32bit performance now.

Really, I've heard if money is no object AMD is the better choice.

If you have heard that very recently, then that's probably correct. My information is a little dated. To be sure, read review on hardocp and tom's hardware.

If you have heard that very recently, then that's probably correct. My information is a little dated. To be sure, read review on hardocp and tom's hardware.
I read that about two months ago, at extremetech.com. They test their rigs with a combo of games and media-encoding.

If money's no object, then the brand is irellevant. You'll just go buy the meanest bag of CPUs on the market.

For us mortals though, AMD is usually the better choice. Still, if you're not a big gamer, then Intel still rules the 32bit apps.
That said, there's not much point in going for 32bit performance now.
What's the meanest CPU on the market?

What's the meanest CPU on the market?
Perhaps a MIPS, SGI, or ARM.

I'd say it comes down to what you sue your comp for. I don't have many games and use my comp mostly for the internet and come imagine programs. So Intel seem to handle the job better, I've had problems with AMD before. However, on the flipside I've found -in the past- when I used to game more that Intel wasn't up to the job.

Conclusion: It's dependant on what you use your machine for

AMD!!!

Asking which processor is better is like asking which tool works better - You have to specify what you're using it for. Intel used to be big on the numbers game, hence their stock processors being sold at speeds as high as 3.8Ghz. AMD 64-bit processors are cheap nowadays compared to Intels of comparable 32-bit performance. And Intel IA64... is a joke, quite frankly.

The biggest reason why more people use Intel is because it used to be the major CPU manufacturer - because they had their hand in everybody's back pocket.

Think about it, when you buy a game or some other software from 3+ years ago, on almost every box it would say "*Blahblah* recommends Intel Hyper-Threaded processors..." Why? Same reason that television stations run commercials. It's all endorsement, to get you to buy it. In the same way, it puts a bit of money in the software developer's pocket.

And I suppose the other reason that a majority of relatively old systems have Intels is that most major OEMs offered AMD in very few configurations, on a limited number of product lines. Plus, the number-game got to people. Think of it, if you were average Joe Schmo, only knowing that computers make noises and cost alot, and you walked into Best Buy and looked at two computers, would you go for the 3.4Ghz Intel Pentium 4, or the AMD Athlon 64, running at 2.4Ghz?

And by the way, Intel 8xx's are just smart, overpriced hot plates. Athlon X2 tests show an average die temperature of half of what most Intel 8xx's get.

AMD all the way. But if you do get a 64-bit processor (Opteron, A64, X2, Turion, that lot), get a 64-bit OS. If you don't, it's like buying a Viper and not taking it past first gear. But don't get Windows x64. It's a beta, and it's got more bugs than an antfarm. Sure, it's free, but so is OpenSUSE, Mandrake, and so on.

64 bit software is kinda worthless right now on the x86 platform (intel and amd to you noobs). I have seen good things by nero if you are just burnin c.ds. but if not stay with xp its cheap, by that i mean free..... illegally, its secure and fast. if you go linux, good for you, i hate the crap personally. amd has been rockin out for the past two years, but before that they were trashy. theyll rock out for the next two until intel passes them. dont get an intel right now unless you wont this hot proc that doesnt play your games worth a flip. if your goin with an internet box, you know basic office stuff. get a celeron. theyre alright for that kinda thing. but if your gonna be gamin youd be a punk if you didnt get a Athlon 64. itll support the next 64bit OS from microsoft, Vista. also when you go with an Athlon 64, bo with a motherboard with an nforce 4 chipset. SLI stuff is a bit much for an inexperienced hardware guy, unless you want the very best. PCI express is good, represents future proofing. If you dont get SLI though, get like a 450Watt power supply the proc and board might set you back anywhere from 250-400 dollars american. if your in the states check out tigerdirect.com nice site. oh and your looking for a socket 939 pin athlon 64. good luck. tell me what you get.

And speaking of 64-bit Linux OS, I recommend Mandriva Linux 2006. SuSE Linux 10.0 won't make you happy.

64 bit software is kinda worthless right now on the x86 platform (intel and amd to you noobs). I have seen good things by nero if you are just burnin c.ds. but if not stay with xp its cheap, by that i mean free..... illegally, its secure and fast. if you go linux, good for you, i hate the crap personally. amd has been rockin out for the past two years, but before that they were trashy. theyll rock out for the next two until intel passes them. dont get an intel right now unless you wont this hot proc that doesnt play your games worth a flip. if your goin with an internet box, you know basic office stuff. get a celeron. theyre alright for that kinda thing. but if your gonna be gamin youd be a punk if you didnt get a Athlon 64. itll support the next 64bit OS from microsoft, Vista. also when you go with an Athlon 64, bo with a motherboard with an nforce 4 chipset. SLI stuff is a bit much for an inexperienced hardware guy, unless you want the very best. PCI express is good, represents future proofing. If you dont get SLI though, get like a 450Watt power supply the proc and board might set you back anywhere from 250-400 dollars american. if your in the states check out tigerdirect.com nice site. oh and your looking for a socket 939 pin athlon 64. good luck. tell me what you get.
Ehehe. Yeah, I think 64-bit software would be kind of useless on x86... where it wouldn't run, period... :P x86-64 (x64) on the other hand... And, you know, 64-bit software on a 64-bit architecture with a 64-bit operating system provides considerable performance gains. It's finding a stable 64-bit operating system that can run that software that really turns most people away.

64 bit software is kinda worthless right now on the x86 platform (intel and amd to you noobs). I have seen good things by nero if you are just burnin c.ds. but if not stay with xp its cheap, by that i mean free..... illegally, its secure and fast. if you go linux, good for you, i hate the crap personally. amd has been rockin out for the past two years, but before that they were trashy. theyll rock out for the next two until intel passes them. dont get an intel right now unless you wont this hot proc that doesnt play your games worth a flip. if your goin with an internet box, you know basic office stuff. get a celeron. theyre alright for that kinda thing. but if your gonna be gamin youd be a punk if you didnt get a Athlon 64. itll support the next 64bit OS from microsoft, Vista. also when you go with an Athlon 64, bo with a motherboard with an nforce 4 chipset. SLI stuff is a bit much for an inexperienced hardware guy, unless you want the very best. PCI express is good, represents future proofing. If you dont get SLI though, get like a 450Watt power supply the proc and board might set you back anywhere from 250-400 dollars american. if your in the states check out tigerdirect.com nice site. oh and your looking for a socket 939 pin athlon 64. good luck. tell me what you get.


1) if you hate forums why are you here?
2) How the fuck does NERO fall into your listing of reviews of OS's? (it was compleatly out of no where)
3) you may want to pay attention to sale stats AMD just took over marked leader for retail PC sales and the turon is making massive headway in the laptop market
4) your review on SLI and PCI-E is alright but you may want to point out that if you get an SLI board you can run all standard PCI-E cards but it adds functionality later on

Add to your site list
http://www.newegg.com

And speaking of 64-bit Linux OS, I recommend Mandriva Linux 2006. SuSE Linux 10.0 won't make you happy.
Novell SuSE is a joke. OpenSuSE is awesome. And personally, Mandriva pisses me off. I downloaded what was supposedly a "64-bit Mandriva Linux 2006 SE" or special edition or whatever... and it was just a renamed 32-bit install. Didn't exactly make my day, spending an hour downloading a few 700MB ISOs to find that every one of them was just a renamed 32-bit install.

I've found AMD to be much more reliable the Intel... so my choice is AMD.


AMD POWER

Ehehe. Yeah, I think 64-bit software would be kind of useless on x86... where it wouldn't run, period... :P x86-64 (x64) on the other hand... And, you know, 64-bit software on a 64-bit architecture with a 64-bit operating system provides considerable performance gains. It's finding a stable 64-bit operating system that can run that software that really turns most people away.
Agreed.
I am just pissed cause linux kernal does not support my GF4 chipset

I was rather pissed, it is listed as supported
But I have tried the 64 and 32 bit edditions of

Slackware
Debian
Fedora core 4

(then BSD's)
FreeBSD
NetBSD
OpenBSD

The closest I got to running was FreeBSD and even then it would not read network cards accross the board (built in or anything on the pci )

http://www.newegg.comlink fixed ;)

Novell SuSE is a joke. OpenSuSE is awesome. And personally, Mandriva pisses me off. I downloaded what was supposedly a "64-bit Mandriva Linux 2006 SE" or special edition or whatever... and it was just a renamed 32-bit install. Didn't exactly make my day, spending an hour downloading a few 700MB ISOs to find that every one of them was just a renamed 32-bit install.
Hmmm I had good luck with madriva ... only used it in a centrino envyron (one of the few distro's to really support full centrino functionality)

link fixed ;)
Lol thanks
I should make a newtegg lol

Agreed.
I am just pissed cause linux kernal does not support my GF4 chipset

I was rather pissed, it is listed as supported
But I have tried the 64 and 32 bit edditions of

Slackware
Debian
Fedora core 4

(then BSD's)
FreeBSD
NetBSD
OpenBSD

The closest I got to running was FreeBSD and even then it would not read network cards accross the board (built in or anything on the pci )

You need to get the drivers from nvidia. They will work with any of the linuxes you mentioned.

I use the 64 bit version of Debian. The unstable distribution can be...well...unstable! But the other versions are fine. In fact the unstable distribution now includes a version of apt-get that checks if things will break if it does the latest upgrade and will resolve those issues before attempting to upgrade (so, it isnt as unstable anymore). Ive been a RedHat, Mandrake, and Slackware guy in the past but now I'm 100% Debian. Nothing beats typing 'apt-get update && apt-get upgrade' and having all of my programs immediately upgraded to the latest version without any further intervention on my part.

Ubuntu and Kubuntu are wonderful Debian based distributions for linux noobs. Both of them have 64 bit versions as well.

I've used Intel Pentium 133s, Pentium 200s, AMD K6-2 350s, Pentium 4s and now an AMD Athon64 3200+. This excludes my 8086 and 80286 PCs - and a an Apple LCII.

The current crop of AMDs on the desktop beats the Intel chips, but I still prefer the Intels on laptops. Only got two working home PCs, Pentium 4 1.7GhZ Compaq laptop and custom-built Athlon64 PC.

AMD have led the way in performance and price since the K7 CPU was released.

AMD wins hands down! Not even a contest to begin with!

P3's and Northwood P4's were the best. But these days, if I had to buy a new CPU, it would probably be AMD.

For equally priced chips, the AMD one will probably be the faster for just about all processes

At the moment if you have need of 64 bit then AMD. However, Intel is catching up to them.....

At the moment if you have need of 64 bit then AMD. However, Intel is catching up to them.....
...Except for the reported server deficiencies when using hyperthreading :p

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39237341,00.htm

...Except for the reported server deficiencies when using hyperthreading :p

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39237341,00.htm

People actually try to use that? ;) We always turn it off. Our servers are more for storage or low level stuff like print servers, etc.

I myself run a p4 Prescott chip.

Whats the difference?

Its got a 1Mb L2 cache.

Reputedly, Prescotts run hot, but I have never once had any issues with it.
Mines not overclocked, even though I game all the time, mainly becuase I see no need to do so.
I can tell you that my machine runs faster than many systems with bigger processors.

AMD's can be nice with that double clock cycle business, but for my money, if you want quality...its Pentium, all the way.

A+ Certified Tech. (wich means Ive taken computer kindergarten)

I myself run a p4 Prescott chip.

Whats the difference?

Its got a 1Mb L2 cache.

Reputedly, Prescotts run hot, but I have never once had any issues with it.
Mines not overclocked, even though I game all the time, mainly becuase I see no need to do so.
I can tell you that my machine runs faster than many systems with bigger processors.

AMD's can be nice with that double clock cycle business, but for my money, if you want quality...its Pentium, all the way.

A+ Certified Tech. (wich means Ive taken computer kindergarten)

Also A+ and I pick amd for sheer bang for your buck :p

People actually try to use that? ;) We always turn it off. Our servers are more for storage or low level stuff like print servers, etc.
Lol so do we but ... lol

Also A+ and I pick amd for sheer bang for your buck :p


Nonsense!

You cant get that warm fuzzy satisfaction of probably having paid too much, when choosing AMD.
When you've coughed up about 50 more dollars than you should have, thats piece of mind, dammit.

Nonsense!

You cant get that warm fuzzy satisfaction of probably having paid too much, when choosing AMD.
When you've coughed up about 50 more dollars than you should have, thats piece of mind, dammit.
Depends on the chip :-P remember I personaly sprung for opterons :p

Agreed.
I am just pissed cause linux kernal does not support my GF4 chipset

I was rather pissed, it is listed as supported

It is, Nvidia just doesn't allow Linux distributors to integrate the drivers in their distribution. They do allow an easy driverdownload from their website though: http://nvidia.com/content/drivers/drivers.asp

It is, Nvidia just doesn't allow Linux distributors to integrate the drivers in their distribution. They do allow an easy driverdownload from their website though: http://nvidia.com/content/drivers/drivers.asp
Problem is the initial load drivers hang ... hard ... on any install I can find

Its not a matter of complete compatability, On anything but BSD based systems I cant get it as far as an install or menu much less attempting to build with driver support

Edit Ill have to try FreeBSD to give the driverset another shot but Sense I cant read the network card nor my CD rom drives (as they are using SATA ports) it could get intresting

CYRIX!!!






Oh wait, nevermind. I mean AMD.

Problem is the initial load drivers hang ... hard ... on any install I can find

Its not a matter of complete compatability, On anything but BSD based systems I cant get it as far as an install or menu much less attempting to build with driver support

Edit Ill have to try FreeBSD to give the driverset another shot but Sense I cant read the network card nor my CD rom drives (as they are using SATA ports) it could get intresting

There are countless forums out there that will help you get this issue resolved. The driver does work and many people (myself included) use it.

There are countless forums out there that will help you get this issue resolved. The driver does work and many people (myself included) use it.
Ohhh I have tried :)
Ill give it another shot ... but its not too pleasent
I already have 5 *nix boxes up already ... I am geting too lazy to fool around with the one I cant get lol

The AMD Opteron 146 rocks my boxers. Overclocks like a beauty, stable at 3.0 Ghz, that's faster than a FX57 for goodness' sakes. It's 1/5 of the price too...

Intel do good processors for media work but AMD processors aren't slouches either and when it comes to gaming... No contest whatsoever.

And if you're crowing about having a 1mb L2 cach you should take a quick look at the San Diego core... Yep, the Opterons have it, the new Athlons have it and so does the entire X2 range.

Based upon the almost votes, it looks as if most everyone here says AMD pwnz Intel. And it better, I've decided upon getting an AMD 3700+, and that bitch better be good ;)

Being a n00b concerning Linux, and since several Linux users posting here, I must ask: If I used a 64 bit Linux distribution, could I run all the games I have now? Eg: Call of Duty. My gut says "It ain't possible," but one can still hope....

Also A+ and I pick amd for sheer bang for your buck :p
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science minor. AMD all the way. AMD's architectures, both present and future TBRs, are lightyears ahead of that archaic mess they call an architecture that Intel jumbles together every so often.

Intel is focusing on making additions and modifications to existing architectures, and simply renaming them. Why does this hit a sour note with me? Because in a few years, who knows where we'll be architecture-wise? It's nice to have a company that can pump out something new and adapt to ever-present tribulations in both uni- and multi-processor applications.

Electrical Engineering and Computer Science minor. AMD all the way. AMD's architectures, both present and future TBRs, are lightyears ahead of that archaic mess they call an architecture that Intel jumbles together every so often.

Intel is focusing on making additions and modifications to existing architectures, and simply renaming them. Why does this hit a sour note with me? Because in a few years, who knows where we'll be architecture-wise? It's nice to have a company that can pump out something new and adapt to ever-present tribulations in both uni- and multi-processor applications.
If you want all my certs
Masters in both Computer networking modeling and Information security
CCNA
MCSE
A++
:)

Based upon the almost votes, it looks as if most everyone here says AMD pwnz Intel. And it better, I've decided upon getting an AMD 3700+, and that bitch better be good ;)

Being a n00b concerning Linux, and since several Linux users posting here, I must ask: If I used a 64 bit Linux distribution, could I run all the games I have now? Eg: Call of Duty. My gut says "It ain't possible," but one can still hope....
1)
Nice pick I like the 3700+ and 3800+ (when opteron is not a choice)

2)
it IS possible I have managed with wine and a few configed wine clones
COD
and Battlefield two

As well as WOW

BUT it is a LOT of work to get them to where you want them
As much of a *nix fan as I am, I still dualboot on one of my machines for gaming convinance

1)
Nice pick I like the 3700+ and 3800+ (when opteron is not a choice)

2)
it IS possible I have managed with wine and a few configed wine clones
COD
and Battlefield two

As well as WOW

BUT it is a LOT of work to get them to where you want them
As much of a *nix fan as I am, I still dualboot on one of my machines for gaming convinance

Guess I'll have to look into dualbooting so I can try out Linux. Heh, maybe three OSes in one, 64 bit Windows, Linux, and XP.....

Guess I'll have to look into dualbooting so I can try out Linux. Heh, maybe three OSes in one, 64 bit Windows, Linux, and XP.....
Ive done that ... its intresting :) but not bad

Right now I am actualy formating one machine ... server 03
ubuntu
and FreeBSD


As we speek lol

Ive done that ... its intresting :) but not bad

Right now I am actualy formating one machine ... server 03
ubuntu
and FreeBSD


As we speek lol
I plan on dual-booting Ubuntu and XP the next time I have to reinstall XP. Any tips?