Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/2/2003 7:25:39 AM EDT
I may be one of the most ignorant people alive on this one but i'm going to try and learn something. Whats the difference and which one is better for gaming and just normal computer use (surfing, word processor, simple projects etc.) so lets see what this site can teach me today.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 7:28:11 AM EDT
I would not mind having an AMD Athlon chip in my computer. Pentium is like any other premium brand - more publicity does not mean there are not cheaper and just as good alternatives out there.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 7:48:53 AM EDT
For most uses, they will probably be able to perform the same. However in my experience with both AMD and Pentiums in the machines in our office, the AMD will run hotter and louder than a comparable pentium. The pentium MAY be slightly more stable. example: we got a 2.4GHz AMD but had to get a special case with a more powerful fan to run it. However, our similar pentiums have been able to use regular cases. Otherwise, in terms of performance of running calculations, surfing, etc. you probably wouldn't know the difference.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 7:51:01 AM EDT
AMD = Bushmaster Pentium = Colt AMD Athlons will outperform similar Pentium chips. AMD Durons are on about the same playing field. However, AMDs are cheaper than Pentiums. Pentium just has all this name recognition. Both will work fine. You're not doing bad with either.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 7:58:10 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 8:04:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sniper_Wolfe: AMD = Bushmaster Pentium = Colt
View Quote
I coudln't have said it better. It's personal taste. Liek the others said, AMD's are slightly louder and run hotter, and are made cheaper. Personally, i avoid AMD. First off, what's with this "equivalent speed"? IF i buy a 2100 processor, i expect it to run at 2.1 GhZ, NOT "the competitor equivalent". Screw that. Secondly, i've seen one to many AMD's get cracked or chipped while installing them. You'll never see that with an Intel. You get what you pay for. I'm a Colt man myself, and also an Intel man.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 8:15:20 AM EDT
AMD's are typically cheaper, and they're good competition for Intel. Two chip makers means cheaper prices for all. I'd recommend AMD. All the desktops here are AMDs while the servers are Intel.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 8:37:33 AM EDT
It's really not that big of an issue. I've built workstations and servers using both manufacturers. Both have worked great. Gamers tend to like AMD chips because they are more easily overclocked (run higher than rated speed). For normal computer use, either would be just fine.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 10:13:25 AM EDT
Everything said above is about correct. However, if AMD was not around, we would still be using the 486. Intel has not released it 64 bit chip because AMD was having some problems with their's. So Intel sells ther fastest pentium at a premium and rapes the consumer. I always use AMD for this reason. The fact that they are cheaper is just a bonus. Both will work fine for any application you have. TXL
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 10:36:40 AM EDT
AMD [url]www.pricewatch.com[/url]
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 11:01:40 AM EDT
AMD got their start in the business making chips for Intel because Intel couldn't keep up with the demand. AMD has taken Intel designs and made modifications so they will run a little more efficiently. AMD is more bang for the buck.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 11:12:17 AM EDT
AMD gives the equivalent speed because their procs run more efficiently per cycle than the Pentiums. So while a 1.6 GHz Pentium runs more cycles per second than 1600-equivalent Athlon(which runs at 1.4 or so, i think), the two actually will be about the same speed as far as running computations. Think of the Hz mark as a measure of rpm - the pentium may spin faster but as it has less torque it has to get higher rpm's to do the same work, because it does less work per revolution The only reason Hz is used as a measure of speed is because it's simple to measure, and easier to comprehend than measuring the actual speed with which it does computations. The equivalency measure is necessary because most of the public don't understand the distinction and simply think that higher Hz translates into faster - which is true across the same family of chips, but not necessarily true across different manufacturers.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 11:30:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/2/2003 11:39:01 AM EDT by XM777]
Interesting read on Tom's Hardware regarding heating issues after fan or heatsink failure. [url]www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20010917/index.html[/url]
Summary: Heat sink reviews receive a lot of attention. People want to make sure that their microprocessors run cool and safe. However, certain conditions can lead to fan failure or even fallen off heat sinks. We checked out what happens to the CPU once this nightmare scenario occurs.
View Quote
P4
After the removal of the heat sink, Quake 3 Arena is slowing down significantly, but the system remains fully operational. The surface temperature of the Pentium 4 processor is a mere 29 degrees Celsius or 84 degrees Fahrenheit. After we put the heat sink back in place, the system performance went up to the original level. This shows that Pentium 4 has an excellent thermal design. The processor does not take any damage and you are not even losing data, because the system remains operational.
View Quote
AMD
The removal of the heat sink proves to be fatal. In less than a second Athlon 1400 dies the heat death. It doesn't take long and the core reaches a temperature of extremely hefty 370 degrees Celsius / 698 degrees Fahrenheit. If the user of the Athlon system doesn't turn off his box immediately, the motherboard will be destroyed too. There's even the risk of a fire. AMD did not bless the Thunderbird core with ANY thermal protection whatsoever. If the heat sink should come off, the owner is facing a significant financial loss. He requires a new processor and possibly a new motherboard too. Athlon (Thunderbird) owners should make sure that the processor heat sink in their system is fixed 100% safely. The fact that the vast majority of heat sinks is only fixed to the little notches of SocketA doesn't help. We have seen several occasions when those notches finally broke under the weight of the heat sink.
View Quote
[img]www.armscenter.com/xm777/athlon.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 12:40:48 PM EDT
The current generation of AMD chips (IE the latest and greatest) does not retain the lower pricing that the older models did. Unfortunate, but inevitable.
Originally Posted By Sniper_Wolfe: AMD Durons are on about the same playing field.
View Quote
Laughable assertion, that. Where do you get this crap? Alex
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 1:23:28 PM EDT
AMDs are a good processor, been running my AthlonXP 1800 for about a year now and its been good.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 1:40:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By XM777: Interesting read on Tom's Hardware regarding heating issues after fan or heatsink failure. [url]www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20010917/index.html[/url]
View Quote
Yeah, this was a dramatic demonstration in its time (2 years ago), but it was before CPU overheating protection (COP) on AMD motherboards. I build my own systems, and I always go AMD; I don't have the money to throw away on an Intel chip with the same performance.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 1:58:04 PM EDT
Intel inside! If you want a fast machine that is unstable and crashes alot, get an AMD. If you want a solid reliable machine that hardly ever gives you any trouble, go Intel. I used to be an AMD man, but then in trying to outdo Intel they made systems that are unreliable. Intel is not that much more, so I switched and am not going back anytime soon. AMD 314159+ processor equivalence ratings. [b] Smoke and mirrors![/b] They tried to pull that scam before, and it didn't work then and won't work now. That is total BS and companies that try to pull that crap should be avoided. Intel = BMW AMD = Hyundai
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 2:09:22 PM EDT
I have always built all my systems from the ground up, and have used AMD chips because for the last couple of years their chips have been cheaper than and as least as fast if not faster. However, Intel is poised to take the lead yet again in the microprocessor market. The current lot of high end P4 processors with hyperthreading technology is running circles around the equivalent AMD chips. Look for reviews on the 3 GHz P4 with hyper threading verses the new AMD 3000+. The new Intel chips run on an 800 MHz front side bus, which actually improves upon the entire architecture of the computer system. Also, the chipsets (the processing unit that controls inter-motherboard communication, memory usage, and other functions the CPU does not handle) made by Intel are now performing better than those made by VIA and NVIDIA for AMD processors. Intel has also already finished their next chip, which is unnamed as of now, so it is being referred to as the P5. The only reason they have not release it yet is because AMD had to delay their launch of the 64-bit Opteron chips. Intel is waiting for the correct market timing. The P5 chips are going to be produced using the newest 90nm transistor technology, which is currently only within the grasp of Intel. They are also using strained silicon for the actual chip construction. This allows for lower power consumption and more reliable microprocessors. Intel has also moved to 300mm wafer construction. This will allow them to lower the overall production cost of their chips. The P5s also have advanced hyper threading. For those of you who do not know what that is, hyper threading is the ability of a processor to create 2 virtual processors within its own architecture. Parallel processing becomes possible with only one processor. The gains from this are not tremendous as of yet; however, even when running software not optimized for multiple processors, the speed at which a hyper threaded processor can complete two tasks simultaneously is increased. Many consider this technology to be break though and sure to be a standard feature on all processors in the future. At launch, the P5s will use the same mounting system as the P4. In the early part of 2004, Intel plans to release the new mounting system that uses spheres instead of pins for processor mounting. These spheres have a higher surface area, which leads to more efficient power usage by the processor. My field of study is Electrical Engineering with a specialization in processor design logic and materials. I try not to be brand loyal and use what is the best on the market. Intel has always been a leader in advanced technologies, and with their current lot of design innovations, AMD is going to have a LOT of competition in the near future. - Matt
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 2:15:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mejames: Intel inside! If you want a fast machine that is unstable and crashes alot, get an AMD. If you want a solid reliable machine that hardly ever gives you any trouble, go Intel. I used to be an AMD man, but then in trying to outdo Intel they made systems that are unreliable. Intel is not that much more, so I switched and am not going back anytime soon. AMD 314159+ processor equivalence ratings. [b] Smoke and mirrors![/b] They tried to pull that scam before, and it didn't work then and won't work now. That is total BS and companies that try to pull that crap should be avoided. Intel = BMW AMD = Hyundai
View Quote
AMD processors do have more heat issues than Intel processors, but as long as they have a suitable heatsink and fan, they aren't any more unstable or unreliable than Intel processors. And at least AMD didn't design their processors to have inflated clock speeds like Intel. The Pentium 4 running the same clock speed than, say, a Pentium 3 is actually slower. The whole point of the P4 was to beat AMD at clock speed, not performance.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 2:28:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 2:49:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NAM:
Originally Posted By Sniper_Wolfe: AMD = Bushmaster Pentium = Colt
View Quote
I coudln't have said it better. It's personal taste. Liek the others said,[red] AMD's are slightly louder[/red] and run hotter, and are made cheaper.
View Quote
I'm sure you mean you had a bigger fan on the AMD processor you're talking about, right? Cause the processors themselves dont make any audible noise.
Personally, i avoid AMD. First off, what's with this "equivalent speed"? IF i buy a 2100 processor, i expect it to run at 2.1 GhZ, NOT "the competitor equivalent".
View Quote
Then you should get ticked off at Intel for making the P4 SLOWER than the P3 (and AMD equivelant) per clock cycle (hz). The 2.1GHZ p4 would equate to about a 1.6Ghz P3. Just that people don't quite comprehend MHZ doesn't mean anything, unless you're comparing the same type of processor to itself at a faster speed.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 2:54:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mejames: Intel inside! If you want a fast machine that is unstable and crashes alot, get an AMD.
View Quote
As I sit here and type on my AMD based system that hasn't been restarted since MARCH 18th... Wrong, you mean... if you want a fash machine that is unstable and crashes a lot... get Win95, Win98, WinME... AND/OR Install AOL, realplayer, 3 different antivirus programs, etc... 95% of the "unstabilities" I have found with computers is either the old crappy OS'es (before win2k) or people putting a ton of crap on their computer (usually unintentionally...).
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 3:09:50 PM EDT
I just like to shoot ARs. You guys make my head hurt. But thank you for trying to keep us 'puterdummies updated.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 3:14:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Magnus357: I have always built all my systems from the ground up, and have used AMD chips because for the last couple of years their chips have been cheaper than and as least as fast if not faster. However, Intel is poised to take the lead yet again in the microprocessor market. The current lot of high end P4 processors with hyperthreading technology is running circles around the equivalent AMD chips. [red] Look for reviews on the 3 GHz P4 with hyper threading verses the new AMD 3000+.[/red] The new Intel chips run on an 800 MHz front side bus, which actually improves upon the entire architecture of the computer system. Also, the chipsets (the processing unit that controls inter-motherboard communication, memory usage, and other functions the CPU does not handle) made by Intel are now performing better than those made by VIA and NVIDIA for AMD processors. Intel has also already finished their next chip, which is unnamed as of now, so it is being referred to as the P5. The only reason they have not release it yet is because AMD had to delay their launch of the 64-bit Opteron chips. Intel is waiting for the correct market timing.
View Quote
Why Can I already buy the 64bit AMD processors (albeit, slow ones), yet not the Intel ones? They're waiting for good marketing?
The P5 chips are going to be produced using the newest 90nm transistor technology, which is currently only within the grasp of Intel.
View Quote
Don't forget to mention 90nm processors wont be readily available by EITHER company for quite some time, regardless. And they're both gearing up for the change... not just Intel. ------- (referring to quote above in red) And look for prices on the 3+ GHZ P4 (3.2 is $730 at newegg... 3.06 is $670), and then look at the prices of the AMD's (3200+ barton $447, 3000+ Barton is $254) Sooooo... basically, for a few times as much $$$ you can get an intel that may or may not "run circles" around the AMD. But, that's only in apps that are designed for the P4's longer pipeline. With either processor, there will be things that they do better or worse than the competitor. In general software that is optomized for SSE2 and the longer pipeline will get a boost when using a p4... but programs that rely heavily on FPU (like SETI and FOLDING programs) will do better with an AMD. Bottom line is... they both will do a great job for the average user. I personally like seeing these $89 RETAIL 2500+ bartons for most stuff I build... cause cost is more of a factor than anything else. But just as important is getting reputable parts for the rest of the computer... especially the motherboard and memory. And good cooling is always a good thing. In the 50 or 60 computers I've built since the late P3/Athlon days, I've never had either Intel or AMD processor "burn up". (altho 3 DOA processors) I've never had an Intel or AMD related stability problem... Plenty of MOBO related problems, software problems, and mainly OS problems... but no actual processor problems. The best suggestion I have is to use Win2k or WinXP Pro, research the motherboard and memory before you buy it (go to computer forums and look to see if many people have been having issues with them), and keep the processor as cool as you can without the noise being an issue (a fan on a rheostat works great here). Good luck.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 3:23:46 PM EDT
Well thanks alot I got my education for the day, learned lots but the debate is still pretty tough, I've heard good and bad about both. So, ill probably going to go with whats cheaper and if as you say the AMD is cheaper I'll probably go with that. Thanksalot everyone
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 3:28:57 PM EDT
Don't forget to mention 90nm processors wont be readily available by EITHER company for quite some time, regardless. And they're both gearing up for the change... not just Intel.
View Quote
Not to be an ass, but the P5 chips are going to be based on 90nm transistor technology. They are also going to be released before the end of this year. Intel makes 64-bit chips; however, they are not targeted toward the general home user nor do they have the 32-bit backwards compatability the Opteron has. The P5s will also have double the L1 and L2 and I believe even double instruction cache sizes that the current P4 has. I agree that the Opteron is a better chip for distributed computing applications; however, this does not mean they are optimal for multi-use home systems. [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Mzg4[/url] That link has quanitative results from a 3.06 Ghz P4 with hyper threading. It shows how the technology is useful even when programs are not written to take advantage of multiple processors. I not here to bash AMD. My current system runs off an Athlon 2100+. AMD processors have always worked well for me and cost me less. However, the newer chips being produced by AMD are overrated and have reached similar prices to Intel chips. Intel could be accused of over rating at times too, but currently AMD is in the wrong here. Their 3000+ rating on their chips is miss leading as their "3 Ghz" chips do not perform as well as the Intel chips for most home applications. [url]http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030513/index.html[/url] Vist that site for quanitative comparisons between AMD and Intel's high end chips. On a side note, the new 2.4c Ghz P4s are consistantly reaching overclocks to 3.3 Ghz using only air cooling. No one can deny that for power usage and heat management that Intel rules the roost. - Matt
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 3:33:51 PM EDT
Well since I work for AMD as a proc tester I will be a little biased on this issue. I have to agree that Im down with the Intel Hyper threading technology, however you pay for it and unless you are a serious gamer who intends to have the latest and greatest its not nessasary. Since you dont seem to know too much I would assume you are not a serious gamer. With that said, the AMD solution is perfect. As far as the heat issue, yes AMD tends to run hotter, but todays fan/heatsink combos are sufficient coolong for the AMD processors. If you intend to do some serious overclocking then you will have to get some big fancy heatsink solution. check out [url]www.pricewatch.com[/url] and you will see the big difference in price. Dont worry about the new 64bit technology (Athalon) chip. Unless you have 64 bit games or 64 bit applications you wont see any difference.By the way there are no 64 bit games released and only a handfull of programs which im sure you wont use or can afford for day to day use. The Athlon XP 3000 400 FSB will be plenty of an upgrade for the money. Intel spends more money on advertising in a year than we make. Lots of people buy what is advertised. AMD will not let you down. With the money you save on the processor you can get a better video card or a new DVD burner and make some movies..... What ever you choose good luck with it. Sym..
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 3:46:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By steenkybastage:
Originally Posted By mejames: Intel inside! If you want a fast machine that is unstable and crashes alot, get an AMD.
View Quote
As I sit here and type on my AMD based system that hasn't been restarted since MARCH 18th...
View Quote
My home built AMD 2400 system hasn't been rebooted since sometime in January, and that was from a power outtage.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 3:51:12 PM EDT
posting to follow thread later
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 4:03:53 PM EDT
And I thought I was smoking along with my 600mhz P3. [baby] ED
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 5:10:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BigD:
Originally Posted By steenkybastage:
Originally Posted By mejames: Intel inside! If you want a fast machine that is unstable and crashes alot, get an AMD.
View Quote
As I sit here and type on my AMD based system that hasn't been restarted since MARCH 18th...
View Quote
My home built AMD 2400 system hasn't been rebooted since sometime in January, and that was from a power outtage.
View Quote
[beer] Ahhh, the joys of Win2k Server (for me).
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 5:38:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Magnus357:
Don't forget to mention 90nm processors wont be readily available by EITHER company for quite some time, regardless. And they're both gearing up for the change... not just Intel.
View Quote
Not to be an ass,
View Quote
Didn't think you were... just a discussion.
but the P5 chips are going to be based on 90nm transistor technology. They are also going to be released before the end of this year.
View Quote
Yes, both intel and AMD are in the works with the smaller architecture. When I say quite some time (to me), it may not be "quite some time" to everyon else [;)]. Both comanies should have READILY AVAILABLE (not just to OEM) 90nm processors by springish or summer. The only major problems I have with intel deals with this... they don't do anything except try to keep even/1 step ahead. If there was no competition, we'd still be seeing the 66-133mhz a year improvements, and yet still have the (even moreso than now) skyhigh prices (kinda like Apple).
Intel makes 64-bit chips; however, they are not targeted toward the general home user nor do they have the 32-bit backwards compatability the Opteron has.
View Quote
Yes, the 64bit hammers aren't really gonna be initially a big consumer thing either (I don't think). Just that Intel hasn't even (at least not thru any of my sources) released their "countermeasure" to the Opterons that are currently available.
The P5s will also have double the L1 and L2 and I believe even double instruction cache sizes that the current P4 has.
View Quote
This is a good thing! [beer] Now, if only they didn't have a mile long pipeline [;)] and did as much work per cycle as a p3.
I agree that the Opteron is a better chip for distributed computing applications; however, this does not mean they are optimal for multi-use home systems.
View Quote
I wasn't even referring to opterons... as they just came out recently. Haven't been able to see any major comparisons in programs that I was referring to (seti and folding... FPU dependant programs). Any socket A processor compared to any post P3 processor, the AMD will give much better results in FPU stuff like that... With the long pipeline in the p4, any incorrect prediction means a major slowdown, so they suffer greatly in those type programs.
[url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Mzg4[/url] That link has quanitative results from a 3.06 Ghz P4 with hyper threading. It shows how the technology is useful even when programs are not written to take advantage of multiple processors.
View Quote
Yep, I like hyperthreading, just not for the huge price difference. When all the p4 processors A) come down in price, and B) have the goodies like hyperthreading, then that's when it'll really make a difference. Unfortunately, most users won't notice, nore care... they just want cheap systems that blow their old ones away. I can build an entire computer for less than the price of just a 3.2Ghz P4 processor. (OUCH!)
I not here to bash AMD.
View Quote
Not here to bash Intel, either! Just point out for most users it's not necessary to spend the extra $$
My current system runs off an Athlon 2100+. AMD processors have always worked well for me and cost me less. However, the newer chips being produced by AMD are overrated and have reached similar prices to Intel chips.
View Quote
There's one little bit I don't agree upon. The price isn't nearly what the P4's prices are. As I posted above, a 2500+ barton is only $89 w/ HSF. A 1.8Ghz P4 is $121. A 2.4Ghz Celeron is still more expensive than the barton at $91. The difference in prices only gets larger, the higher up in speed you go. Up to the drastic example above with the 3.2Ghz P4 and 3200+ barton.
Intel could be accused of over rating at times too, but currently AMD is in the wrong here. Their 3000+ rating on their chips is miss leading as their "3 Ghz" chips do not perform as well as the Intel chips for most home applications.
View Quote
Well, I'll take your word on that... as I've yet to compare myself any bartons with P4's w/ hyperthreading. Altho I have both in shipping for 3 new computers being built for work... so soon I should have a better personal experience. BUT, look again at what you pay for the difference. Check out what a home user would actually end up getting, and what it'd cost them. The average home user would be MORE than satisfied with just about any new processor... and so the cheaper the better. The $89 barton wouldn't probably lose to the $91 celeron, nor the $121 P4, in most home users apps.
[url]http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030513/index.html[/url] Vist that site for quanitative comparisons between AMD and Intel's high end chips.
View Quote
Apparently you werent around the past few years for all the scandals over at toms... I would take ANYTHING they post with a grain of salt, or flat out disbelieve it. Just from stupid BS they've pulled off in the past. (Not saying whatever you're linking to is necessarily wrong, just that I don't consider tom's a trusted source).
On a side note, the new 2.4c Ghz P4s are consistantly reaching overclocks to 3.3 Ghz using only air cooling. No one can deny that for power usage and heat management that Intel rules the roost. - Matt
View Quote
At the moment, that's correct. They're always flip flopping back and forth, just like ATI/Nvidia... My whole earlier post (and most of this one), is based on the average joe user, who is 99% likely to be interested in the "bang for the buck" factor, not the latest and greatest regardless of price. Not at all trying to say Intel sucks, or any such thing... just trying to make sense to the original poster. The only thing I WILL spout off about, is that APPLE/Mac's SUCK! Take the worst of both AMD and Intel and you have a Mac, haha. High price and less performance [beer]
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 7:24:35 PM EDT
yet another vote for AMD. my box at work is a 2.4 P4. my box at home is a 1.4@1.8 athlon XP. my home machine performs better. of course 10K SCSI drives don't hurt. and it was built by me, unlike my work machine, that is an OEM (gateway) box of compromises to a price point.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 7:46:16 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 7:58:49 PM EDT
AMD....faster performance at a better price (though they do have issues w/ heat).
Top Top