I have read many articles comparing the latest CPU's from AMD and Intel. My question is, since AMD is considered to be the best option for video, audio and gaming and INTEL for other specific applications; would the defference between the 2 be that drastic that one should have a rig of each CPU in order to accomplish task from each side of the applications or would the, lets say, AMD be good enough to deal with the programs that INTEL does better to have as your main and only CPU?
Well to me i run 2 desktop intel PC's and one latptop centrino, and the computer i use to write now is an AMD Sph*** however that is spelt umm i find that they are roughly the same but i find amd is a faster processor and it doesnt take that long to load and doo all the stuff intel does slower than amd. I hope that helps... Here is a link to the actual forum that is discussin this intensivley and that would b the best place to post this question http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/203318 I hope that helps
isnt that the age old question AMD IS BETTER! full stop there cheaper more powerfull and are cooler BUT! (lol there is always a but i love it) intel is better in some areas aka movie editiong (mainly due to ddr2)
Ｉ　ｈａｖｅ　ｌｉｋｅ　４ｌａｐｔｏｐｓ　ａｎｄ　２　ｄｅｓｋｔｏｐｓ　ｉｎ　ｍｙ　 ｆｏｕｒ　ｏｆ　ｔｈｅｍ　ａｒｅ　Ｐ４　ａｎｄ　Ｔｗｏ　ｏｆ　ｔｈｅｍ　ａｒｅ　ＡＭＤ　 Ａｔｈｌｏｎ６４　 boy these AMD computer are much quieter and cooler and faster than those freakin p4 base computers i'm not buying intel anymore i'm not buying dell anymore their customer service sucks
eveilholy,usingaspaceeverynowandthenhelps. either one has its benifits, intel copes with movie production and multitasking better, amd is cheaper and cooler and quicker at games. Therfore for the price youd pay for an intel rig, you could buy a faster amd rig....its all up to the individual
These days the real world difference is minimal. One might finish encoding a video 2 minutes faster than the other, but get 5 frames per second less in a game. In other words, a barely noticeable difference between equally matched processors. It gets down to issues like cost, heat, and installation. Intel heatsinks are much easier to install that AMD chips. A friend that works in a local shop has told me of the AMD "Crunch of Death" where the CPU core is cracked from the pressure required to install the heatsink. On the Intel, you just place the heatsink on the chip and flip a couple levers. AMD will win in cost, and these days generally run cooler than Intel chips. On the original Athlons and Thunderbirds, the reverse was true and AMD ran much hotter but now they run cooler. Again, a barely noticeable difference though, a matter of a few degrees between manufacturers.
Well I am a Intel guy and always have been but I have to admit that AMD has the advantage now. I say that because many boards that support AMD 939 also will support a dual processor. So that means you more than likely you will not have to purchase a new board. Plus the AMD dual Processor is out performing the Intel Dual Processor. Damn!
This is interesting. I always read that AMD was better with media then Intel. Many of you say that Intel is better. As far as I know AMD has outperformed Intel in almost any type of media test I have read. I even read of a CGI studio who dropped Apple, who I remember was what everyone told me I should use for editing music, movies and pictures, for the Opteron if I'm not wrong. It seems that besides being good at media, which is what I like most about PCs, AMD has good enough reasons for me to stick with it from now on. Cooler, quieter, 939 compatible with dual core, dual core better than Intel, cheaper and still with room for improvement since it's only around 2.8 gigs still. Thanks for your opinions on this matter. I plan on building what I consider the ultimate home PC which will cost me a pretty penny but its what I want. I hope to share my specs with you someday soon when I build it.
ok i have a big important question i am 14 years old and am selling my current machine to my dad for 700 which is pretty good with my dad.. anyway(the machine is below) on my new machine i cant decide wether to go amd or intel... uses are games games and more games these two rigs would cost about the same. ABIT Fatal1ty AAX8E. Intel P4 prescott 640 3.2ghz. Silverstone Tjo6 case. and XFX GeForce 6600GT PCI-E (all other parts will be from previous machine expet maybe memory. NOW THE AMD VERSION ABIT Fatal1ty AN8-SLi (hehe sli this one has it the other dont). AMD Athlon64 3500+ 2.2 ghz Venice Core. THE GRAPHICS CARD AND CASE WOULD BE THE SAME. WHICH RIG IS BETTER FOR GAMES.
This is the list of what I so far am planning on building once i can buy the parts which if it all works out should be able to do before then end year. AMD Athlon 64 FX55 ClawHammer Integrated into Chip FSB 1MB L2 Cache Socket 939 Processor MSI K8N Neo4/SLI Socket 939 NVIDIA nForce4 SLI ATX AMD Motherboard 2 mushkin SP3200 1GB 184-Pin DDR SDRAM DDR 400 (PC 3200) Unbuffered 2 Western Digital Raptor 74GB 3.5" Serial ATA150 Hard Drive in raid Western Digital Caviar SE 320GB 3.5" Serial ATA150 Hard Drive ATI All-In-Wonder Radeon X600Pro 100-714131 All-In-Wonder Radeon X600Pro 256MB 128-bit DDR VIVO PCI Express x16 Video Card PLEXTOR Black IDE DVD Burner Model PX-740A/SW-BL Logitech's diNovo Media Desktop CREATIVE Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS Platinum Logitech® Z-5500 Digital Speakers Antec PlusView1000AMG Case Still have a few things to work out like the power supply which I have my eye on one. I also have doubts about a monitor as well. What ya think? I did say it be a bit expensive but worth it.
AMD all the way. BUT if you are serious about gaming you need to get decent memory & a decent graphics card. For MY money you should get the BEST graphics card you can possibly afford. Most of the games now are designed for AMD chips. But again you need a decent card. Even if you have to sell your Grandmother! Buy cheap & you WILL regret it. Pulsar PS, people will argue the toss as to which is the best chip. I really don't care what other people say about Pentiums or AMDs, you could quote me figures, but it would make no odds, I prefer AMDs, all my friends are gamers, as am I - we ALL have AMDs. The choice is yours.
A lot of people prefer Nvidia chipset cards opposed to ATi chipsets. As far as I am concerned Nvidia make far superior drivers compared to ATi. Hence I would go for a 7800 SLi card. The 24 pixel pipeline version would suffice. You have the option to double up in the future. To be honest although the chip you want is awesome, the difference is in the cards. I have a 3200 barton after having a 2600XP. The difference in performance is minimal! Spend the money on the card(s), not the chip! Pulsar
Save some money by not getting the FX and getting a 4200 x2 or 4400 x2. You'll be glad you did when multithreaded games like Unreal 2007, and other UE3 games come out. Plus you can save say $300 or so and get a better video card- Go with a 7800gt, gtx, or ultra (drool) Also, make sure you get 2x1gb sticks instead of 4x512mb sticks, I couldn't tell what you have planned the way you worded it Also, if you want to OC, get a DFI LP UT ultra-d/sli-d. You'll probably end up getting a board with Nvidia's new chipset coming out in a couple weeks anyway though, just make sure it's DFI if you want to OC.
@ Pulsar DFI = mobo makers LP = lan party UT = series of board @ djbandit 2 Western Digital Raptor 74GB 3.5" Serial ATA150 Hard Drive in raid they are gonna be a bit noisy @ 10,000 rpm ..what raid config you gonna go for ?
