Stop Microsoft

All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Hardware => Topic started by: Lead Head on 9 June 2005, 03:46

Title: Intel or AMD
Post by: Lead Head on 9 June 2005, 03:46

Intel or AMD

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: Laukev7 on 9 June 2005, 04:31

Hardware section.

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: adiment on 9 June 2005, 04:36

Depends...

Intel - Better than AMD at Encoding, Rendering, and something else I forgot
AMD - Better than Intel at Gaming

in everything else they are about the same...but AMD comes cheaper (and I'm not talking about CPU + Cheap Mobo, I'm talking about CPU + Good mobo)

You're choice, AMD does come cheaper...even though prices are getting close. If you're planning to overclock I'd also suggest AMD.

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: xyle_one on 9 June 2005, 05:03

Intel simply because of Apple :(

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: WMD on 9 June 2005, 06:04

I buy Intel because I like their chipsets, and because my dad owns stock in them. ;)

A neat Intel thing to try, is to get a Pentium M and then either one of the microATX desktop boards for them, or the P4 to PM converter that someone puts out...I forget who.  The M is really awesome.  You'll pay a lot for that, though.

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: BobTheHob on 9 June 2005, 07:33

I used to say Intel, now I say neither. 64-bit RISC all the way, CISC is stupid. I like SGI MIPS myself.

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: toadlife on 9 June 2005, 12:32

Ever since the k6 days I've use AMD. I made the mistake of buying a PIII 500 machine in 1999, and was really pissed when 6 months later I built an AMD Athoon 750 machine and it benchmarked *twice* as fast as the PIII 500 intel machine. I don't encode video for a living, so Intel's 5-10% advantage in this area is irrelevant to me.

Tomshardware did a little head to head (http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/index.html) and found that AMD's new dual core processors are better at many multimedia tasks (http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-15.html) (where intel used to beat AMD) than Intels dual core processors. Intel's dual core procs also suck up 200 Watts of power jsut sitting still, and uo to 310 watts when under load. AMD's dual core chips take 125 to 190 watts of power.

Yes, I am an AMD fanboy. :p

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: Refalm on 9 June 2005, 15:19

I've got an AMD Sempron at the moment. AMD's are fast, and the nForce chipset that come on most AMD-able motherboards is simply the best chipset (got neat Linux drivers too).

Installing an AMD is somewhat more difficult than Intel, because of the fragile core on top, but the advantages of AMD outweigh that issue.

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: solemnwarning on 9 June 2005, 16:50

Quote from: Refalm

I've got an AMD Sempron at the moment. AMD's are fast, and the nForce chipset that come on most AMD-able motherboards is simply the best chipset (got neat Linux drivers too).

Installing an AMD is somewhat more difficult than Intel, because of the fragile core on top, but the advantages of AMD outweigh that issue.

AMDs rule!!!

but semprons are crappy comapred to xp athlon

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: Refalm on 9 June 2005, 19:02

Quote from: solemnwarning

AMDs rule!!!

but semprons are crappy comapred to xp athlon

Although they have a small cache, it's pretty much acceptable, Games play great.

I compensated the Sempron with quality RAM and a good videocard.

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: toadlife on 9 June 2005, 20:40

Semprons are great for their purpose....general computing. And they are cheap.

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: KernelPanic on 9 June 2005, 21:20

Quote from: toadlife

Semprons are great for their purpose....general computing. And they are cheap.

Cheap as chips!

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: Lead Head on 9 June 2005, 21:28

I like AMD my self. At tomshardware they are doing a strestest. here is the link http://www.tomshardware.com/stresstest/index.html  (http://www.tomshardware.com/stresstest/index.html) . Also tomshardware got a sempron 3100 to get about 70+ FPS on doom 3 and when overclocked to 2.16 GHz it got a little over 80 FPS. Here is the other link http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050202/index.html (http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050202/index.html)

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: Jenda on 9 June 2005, 21:51

And for another point of view: How do the two companies support FLOSS?
I had the impression Intel is not a friend... (eg in open BIOS)

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: mobrien_12 on 10 June 2005, 05:59

Quote from: Jenda

And for another point of view: How do the two companies support FLOSS?
I had the impression Intel is not a friend... (eg in open BIOS)

Intel has supported open source on things ranging from graphics to chipsets to Centrino to CPUs.  Intel has also put a lot of money into the Linux Defense Fund.  Look it up on Google.

Also, here is an excerpt from Intel's web page

Quote

Does Intel support Open Source?
Intel has been involved with Open Source projects for a long time and intends to continue contributing to the Open Source community supporting our PC platforms, as our customers indicate the need. Intel has recently made significant financial investments into external companies involved with Linux and is developing technologies that will be adopted by IA64, which will be contributed to the Open Source community. This driver is an example of our support for the Desktop PC segment.

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: JanusChrist on 10 June 2005, 08:30

2600 Athlon XP Barton here. I've always liked AMDs.

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: RaZoR1394 on 10 June 2005, 08:56

With the newer AMD64's AMD kicks mayor butt in almost all apps, not only games, specially with their two X2's. I currently have 2 amd64's and 2 P4's but the P4's are kinda old and I have no plans in buying an Intel furthermore.

Pentium's are hot, expensive, low performing, etc. No reason to buy one of them.

I would recommend a AMD64, preferrable San Diego, Venice or an X2 if you're interested in a new CPU.

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: toadlife on 10 June 2005, 10:55

Intel will be coming out with new chips that address the heat issues. They will be merging the technology from the PentiumM series.

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: MarathoN on 11 June 2005, 23:10

I've been using AMD chips since the K6 days, and every single one has performed great (including this Athlon XP 1800+) :)

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: MrX on 12 June 2005, 01:29

i think it depends on your political standing. if you are to the left, you like AMDs because you are a rebel. if you like intel, you are on the right, because you dont like to try new things and stay with the 'mainstream' like all the big box OEMs do.

MrX

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: solemnwarning on 12 June 2005, 01:35

Quote from: MarathoN

I've been using AMD chips since the K6 days, and every single one has performed great (including this Athlon XP 1800+) :)

i got an 1800+ in my debian 3.1 lan server :)

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: Lead Head on 12 June 2005, 01:35

Go Rebels!!!!!!

I only got a 1700 and a radeon 9600 for my machine

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: Aloone_Jonez on 12 June 2005, 01:39

Quote from: MrX

i think it depends on your political standing. if you are to the left, you like AMDs because you are a rebel.

This sounds like lots of Linux users.

Quote from: MrX

if you like intel, you are on the right, because you dont like to try new things and stay with the 'mainstream' like all the big box OEMs do.

This sounds like typical Windows users.

I don't know though, do more Linux users use AMDs?

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: solemnwarning on 12 June 2005, 01:42

Quote from: Put_lead_in_gates_head

Go Rebels!!!!!!

I only got a 1700 and a radeon 9600 for my machine

GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AMD WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 AMD WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

XD

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: Lead Head on 12 June 2005, 01:55

My 1700,Radeon 9600,768 MB PC2100 gets an average of 25 FPS on Farcry. It isn't bad but not good either. It boots WinXP SP2 in about 28-32 sec INCLUDING logging on. It boots Suse 9.1 in about 1 minute and 30 sec. Linux is on a sucky 6 GB ATA33 HD too

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: MarathoN on 12 June 2005, 03:34

I'm glad I use Windows 2000, since it doesn't take long to boot at all, it boots faster than Slackware at least, but I don't really care much about that since I use Linux mostly anyway.

(My Geforce FX 5700 flies on Far Cry :))

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: Lead Head on 12 June 2005, 03:48

A radeon 9600 is probably on par with a FX 5700.

 
Here are my system specs.
 
AMD Athlon XP 1700+
Soyo SY-K7ADA V1.0 w/4X AGP
80 GB Seagate Baracuda (UDMA 5) (Win)
6 GB WD (ATA33) (Linux)
Saphire Radeon 9600 4x/8x AGP
Creative Sound Blaster Live!
550 Watt PSU
Do to stability problems i can only run the Radeon 9600 on 2x Mode. When i turn my AGP speed up tp 4xmode my PC gets about 35 FPS on farcry than it locks up and crashes.

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: Jenda on 12 June 2005, 22:18

I'm a rebel and to the right! Go AMD - my next CPU!

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: noob on 19 June 2005, 12:11

ive allways used amd except my server, which in a celeron but i bought a whole machine minus hdd and ram and cd drive for the price of a sempron 2000

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: microchip on 29 June 2005, 21:09

Two Words:

AMD RULES
That's all I have to say besides AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD AMD.

Title: Re: AMD RULES!!!!!!
Post by: Lead Head on 30 June 2005, 00:08

I just  upGRADED


Athlon 64 3000
Giga-Byte Something Something S939 Mobo
everything else the same

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: TB on 9 July 2005, 10:59

I too am an AMD user. I just can't see the incentive in buying Intel anymore - they're overpriced and suck up a LOT more power than AMD chips. And after Intel announced that they'll be putting DRM features into their dual-cores......well I just can't see myself buying Intel ever again.

Title: Re: Intel or AMD
Post by: Lead Head on 9 July 2005, 16:18

Well for their dual core 840EE suckin 130 Watts of power i see what you mean.their EMT64 is a midified version of Athlon64 tech. I heared that the K in AMD stands for kryptonite . We all know the kryptonite weekins superman and AMD says the superman is intel so their CPUs weeken them