NationStates Jolt Archive

The standard argument, the AMD built processors versus their Intel counterparts.

Novelty indeed.

This really depends on what you are using them for and in what sense you are comparing them in. For performance amd right now is winning for value as well. Whereas in a few months conroe from intel will be out and as of this moment it is slaughtering AMD processors like ants... or something even weaker...
Where as AMD is working on reverse hyper threading... where they will make their dual cores appear to have one core to increase performance in single threaded applications... e.g. games. This will be a huge improvement in performance, well nearly double what you would get otherwise.
And right now video encoding, sound encoding, calculations, gaming, file copying, file editing, well you get the message everything under teh sun is being done on AMD's better right now.
But i go with what is best at that moment in time, that i can afford, hence next processor upgrade is a AMD 3700+ i believe. Still trying to get money together for it though.

I have a AMD Athelon FX-60 Dual Core and am loving every second of it.

This really depends on what you are using them for and in what sense you are comparing them in. For performance amd right now is winning for value as well. Whereas in a few months conroe from intel will be out and as of this moment it is slaughtering AMD processors like ants... or something even weaker...
Ants can carry several times their own body-weight.

Ants can carry several times their own body-weight.

Doesn't sve them from flamethrowers.

I like AMD but until K8L comes out, unless AM2 does something ludicrously good (and it won't) then Conroe/Woodcrest/Yonah is going to kick it's ass.

AMD64's been a good run but it's not going to match up to Conroe for a good while, right now the archiecture itself is hitting a wall at around 3 Ghz.

And as soon as they move to 65nm intels so called advantage will be erased. AMD still has the best tech, but Intel, because of their virtual monopoly and greater capacity was simply able to pump out 65nm chips earlier.

Alot of AMD fans like to think AMD will always stay on top, and this isnt true.

Look at the history. No one stays on top for more than a few years. It used to just be Apple ( IMB chips ) and intel. Whenever one would pull ahead, the other developed somthing that would give them the edge.

Anyone remeber the last generation? The Pentium 3 Slaughted the competion in nearly every aspect. This generation its been all about AMD.

The same thing is going to happen again. If the conroe is any proof, there are VERY good things comming from intel.

And intel sure as hell does NOT have a monoply on the processor market, they only have about 70%, the rest is made up by IBM,AMD,Transmeta and VIA

It was bound to happen, intel is a huge company with a huge amount of very skilled engineers

Alot of AMD fans like to think AMD will always stay on top, and this isnt true.

Look at the history. No one stays on top for more than a few years. It used to just be Apple ( IMB chips ) and intel. Whenever one would pull ahead, the other developed somthing that would give them the edge.

Anyone remeber the last generation? The Pentium 3 Slaughted the competion in nearly every aspect. This generation its been all about AMD.

The same thing is going to happen again. If the conroe is any proof, there are VERY good things comming from intel.

And intel sure as hell does NOT have a monoply on the processor market, they only have about 70%, the rest is made up by IBM,AMD,Transmeta and VIA

It was bound to happen, intel is a huge company with a huge amount of very skilled engineers
Let me rephrase that. It's caused by their virtual monopoly on the VAR market. Places like Dell, Gateway, etc...

Let me rephrase that. It's caused by their virtual monopoly on the VAR market. Places like Dell, Gateway, etc...
Umm, Gateway,eMachines,Sager,Alienware,Voodoo,HP, ect ect. The only Pre Fab company that still uses only Intel is Dell and a few other smaller companies.

And 65nm doesnt really improve the performance all that much.

Tho I will admit that Intel does have a virtual monoply in the Server Business with its Xeons ( making up for 85% of the market )

Well, I personally have to take environmental factors into account.
EX:
Living in Arizona.
AMD chips produce lots of heat, and I cant afford a fancy pants liquid cooling system.
Thus, AMD chips + Arizona summer = OverheatZOMGTEHDOOMZ!
Plus my room would get even hotter in Summer. Urgh.

But my P4 3.0 ghz works quite well and can run (in conjunction with a Radeon 9800) most new games on medium-high settings with only occasional slowdown.
If I could afford the fancy cooling gear, I would get an AMD as they tend to be cheaper and, from what Ive heard, more powerful.

My personal favorite chip though is the Intel 486 DX, I wuv my retro comp. No DOSbox for me.

Well, I personally have to take environmental factors into account.
EX:
Living in Arizona.
AMD chips produce lots of heat, and I cant afford a fancy pants liquid cooling system.
Thus, AMD chips + Arizona summer = OverheatZOMGTEHDOOMZ!
Plus my room would get even hotter in Summer. Urgh.

But my P4 3.0 ghz works quite well and can run (in conjunction with a Radeon 9800) most new games on medium-high settings with only occasional slowdown.
If I could afford the fancy cooling gear, I would get an AMD as they tend to be cheaper and, from what Ive heard, more powerful.

My personal favorite chip though is the Intel 486 DX, I wuv my retro comp. No DOSbox for me.

Erm you have this the wrong way round, Intels run at a higher speed, AMD runs cooler and is made of cheaper silicon, Intels use a higher priced silicon in their chips allowing them to run hotter, but a average amd 3700 (for example) will run about 30degrees C idle, and about 50degrees C max load. Intel P4 should be about 70 on peak load, and sit around 50 to 60 in idle.

Erm you have this the wrong way round, Intels run at a higher speed, AMD runs cooler and is made of cheaper silicon, Intels use a higher priced silicon in their chips allowing them to run hotter, but a average amd 3700 (for example) will run about 30degrees C idle, and about 50degrees C max load. Intel P4 should be about 70 on peak load, and sit around 50 to 60 in idle.
Funny, I have a Pentium D 830, and it idles around 25c and goes to 43c playing FEAR.

With stock cooling

AMD cuz they don't advertise on tv so i don't have to listen to their drivel, and i dont' know of any others apart from intel.

Funny, I have a Pentium D 830, and it idles around 25c and goes to 43c playing FEAR.

With stock cooling
Yeah that series did have good performance (though the stock coolers were larger then "Average" so calling them stock does not really relay the quality of the cooler really (at least to thoes not familar with the variation of stock))

Personlly I perfer my opterons anyday of the week ... but I am sure you could get something about as good if I was willing to spend more for the xenons

AMD wins. The fact that they're better suited for most things presently, is just an added bonus. The real reason AMD wins, is because I've never seen a "Runs great on an AMD xxxxx with xxxxx technobabble catchphrase".

Dear manufactures of various junk: you don't need to advertise. Your ads are annoying, & generally full of outright lies. If you want my money, spend the money on research instead.

Umm, .....

Tho I will admit that Intel does have a virtual monoply in the Server Business with its Xeons ( making up for 85% of the market )

Well, well, well, ....
Intel is most vulnerable in the server market. While in 2003 the AMD market share was virtually 0%, for the Q1 this year AMD had a 22.1% share in the x86 server market up from 16% in Q4 2005(see: AMD Opteron Continues to Gain Share in Server Market (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060425154714.html) ) ... do the math, and let us know how did you got that 85% for Intet in the x86 server market. Oh, and if you are interested why Opterons are far better than Xeons read this: Eight Core Servers: Opteron 880 (Egypt) vs. Xeon MP 3.0 GHz (Paxville) (http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2745)

Althought I'm using an Intel, I prefer AMD FX's. So I'm going to go to the third vote because I really don't care, just as long as it works.

I have a AMD Athelon FX-60 Dual Core and am loving every second of it.


Me too. And with a geforce 7900 gtx and 2 gigs of ram. Needless to say, I'm in gaming heaven...

I got that figure from a 4 month old copy of PC magazine lol.

I'm waiting for the conroe to come out when I build my new rig, it totally destorys everything its been thrown up aganist. And its not far away now.

While I do like AMD, I'll still be using intel, as always. My Pentium D has taken every game I've thrown at it and runs over it with no problems.

AMD will always stay ahead of Intel, no question.

AMD on the desktops but Intel on laptops as those mobile AMDs don't seem to match up to the new Intel chips.

One gripe about the AMD64 cooling fans - frigging noisy.

AMD will always stay ahead of Intel, no question.
Nope, look at the history of processors, video cards and computers in general.

nVida and ATi always battle for the most performance, right now its ATi, and 10 bucks says nVidia makes somthing better.

For the past 15 years its been going between Intel,AMD,IBM, and AMD has only recently become a major player.

Heres what happens

Company 1 pulls ahead of company 2, then company 2 pulls ahead of company 1, and the cycle repeats.

Look at the conroe, the mid-range version destoryed the best AMD has to offer, unless M2 does somthing new ( it wont ) AMD wont be in 1st place for awhile.

But I have NO doubts in my mind that AMD will pull ahead of Intel, and then AMD pulling ahead of intel again.

Intel has created a totally new type of processor with the conroe, and it will take any company awhile to match it.

nVida and ATi always battle for the most performance, right now its ATi, and 10 bucks says nVidia makes somthing better.

As for what I put in bold: I beg to differ.

nVidia's SLI technology is great. Once ATI comes out with their crossfire, I think SLI will continue to be the better choice.

I have a AMD Athelon FX-60 Dual Core and am loving every second of it.
Have you overclocked it yet? You can easily push it to 2.94GHz. Though part of me wants a Operton 156. It is 3 GHz...stock.:eek: but it is only single core.

Well, I personally have to take environmental factors into account.
EX:
Living in Arizona.
AMD chips produce lots of heat, and I cant afford a fancy pants liquid cooling system.
Thus, AMD chips + Arizona summer = OverheatZOMGTEHDOOMZ!
Plus my room would get even hotter in Summer. Urgh.

But my P4 3.0 ghz works quite well and can run (in conjunction with a Radeon 9800) most new games on medium-high settings with only occasional slowdown.
If I could afford the fancy cooling gear, I would get an AMD as they tend to be cheaper and, from what Ive heard, more powerful.

My personal favorite chip though is the Intel 486 DX, I wuv my retro comp. No DOSbox for me.
Wow. Everyone has the exact opposite story as you. Intels newest preslor chips can boil watter, while AMD maxes out at about 50C.

As for what I put in bold: I beg to differ.

nVidia's SLI technology is great. Once ATI comes out with their crossfire, I think SLI will continue to be the better choice.
ATi's Crossfire is out and it is equal to SLI. Plus, ATi's X1900XTX is the best card you can buy right now.

AMD on the desktops but Intel on laptops as those mobile AMDs don't seem to match up to the new Intel chips.

One gripe about the AMD64 cooling fans - frigging noisy.
I dont know I am falling in love with my turion

ATi's Crossfire is out and it is equal to SLI. Plus, ATi's X1900XTX is the best card you can buy right now.

No. SLI improves faster than ATI can keep up.

http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=195&page=1

Watch as the framerates plummet (with crossfire) as resolutions go up. There are a few other benchmarks as well.

One gripe about the AMD64 cooling fans - frigging noisy.

Water/oil cooling helps me sleep at night.

Well, I personally have to take environmental factors into account.
EX:
Living in Arizona.
AMD chips produce lots of heat, and I cant afford a fancy pants liquid cooling system.
Thus, AMD chips + Arizona summer = OverheatZOMGTEHDOOMZ!
Plus my room would get even hotter in Summer. Urgh.

But my P4 3.0 ghz works quite well and can run (in conjunction with a Radeon 9800) most new games on medium-high settings with only occasional slowdown.
If I could afford the fancy cooling gear, I would get an AMD as they tend to be cheaper and, from what Ive heard, more powerful.

My personal favorite chip though is the Intel 486 DX, I wuv my retro comp. No DOSbox for me.

Hmmm I have never ever heard of a heat problem in any of the xp or later series in AMD that would cause envyromental factors such as you are describing.

Maybe you could re-agrange airflow in the box (things like cable tie's and such)

For all I have seen as much as the claims are either way the heat difference between the too are just silly justifications for things for the most part (in non server procs anyways)

Every fanboy of one brand or the other makes claims that the other has heat issues.

No. SLI improves faster than ATI can keep up.

http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=195&page=1

Watch as the framerates plummet (with crossfire) as resolutions go up. There are a few other benchmarks as well.



Water/oil cooling helps me sleep at night.
I dont know toms hardware shows them swapping between the two pretty hardcore

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/09/26/nvidia_is_in_the_crossfire/page11.html

And in games like hl2 at 1600x1200 beating it pretty solid
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/09/26/nvidia_is_in_the_crossfire/page12.html
In the end game performance seems pretty even to me depending on the game