# AMD Vs INTEL



## ak24 (Aug 14, 2005)

I want to purchase a new motherboard currently i am using intel 865gbf with intel 2.4 processor. I had a real bad experience with the motherboard. Has any one used AMD? is it better than intel ?? I use the pc mostly to play high end games. The AMD Athlon 64 3200+ bit processor may only be rated at 1.6 GHz. While intel has processors more than 3.0 Ghz. Secondly what motherboards are compatible with AMD???? Please help me out...


----------



## nishantv2003 (Aug 14, 2005)

just tipe amd vs intel in Search and u will get ur answer.
and i will suggest for
Amd 3000 or 3200+ 939 pins on Winfast NF4K8MC nforce4 chipset(mobo) and 1gb of corsair ram.
hope this helps


----------



## hcp006sl (Aug 15, 2005)

Processor's internal clock speed is not everything regarding performance. High speed can only generate more heat that can make a system unable to run for a long time in Indian environment. So, opt for AMD cool & quite technology. AMD64 3000+ (socket 939) with Dual DDR and SATA-II HDD is much faster than a Pentium-IV based system with that configuration. I think you should choose a nForce 4 ultra chipset mainboard for increased performance. 
Performance of AMD regarding game and multimedia is really noticeable.


----------



## akshayt (Aug 15, 2005)

xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu

look at Amd 90nm 3000,3200,3500 and other articles which also deal with itnel lga 775

then get back here

but 
mostly or for most apps:
Gaming - Amd
Many other things - Intel
speacially today for Amd 64bit (non X2) and Intel


----------



## QwertyManiac (Aug 15, 2005)

Intels the best in processor features and high end calculation...


----------



## hcp006sl (Aug 15, 2005)

QwertyManiac said:
			
		

> Intels the best in processor features and high end calculation...


In which way? Please tell me.


----------



## sidewinder (Aug 15, 2005)

QwertyManiac said:
			
		

> Intels the best in processor features and high end calculation...


Actually he meants to say is ..... Intel processors are for the rich nd need a high end calculator... _Coz they r so costly that u need a calc to mesure the burnt hole in ur pocket..


----------



## hummer (Aug 18, 2005)

Even then the  intel ll heat up calculatin its size. that is even if the hole is small. LONG LIVE AMD


----------



## Ablenwill (Sep 18, 2005)

Hi All please go through following chart and say me how AMD is cheap and if really it is then let me know the price of the mentioned models.

Intel	D915GAV	915G,V,S,16xPCX	                 4550
	P4-LGA 2.66 GHz	800MHz, 1MB, Non-HT  4800

Intel	D915GAV	915G,V,S,16xPCX	                4550
Intel - HT	P4-LGA 3.0 GHz	800MHz, 2MB,LGA-HT	8450


MSI	RS-480	ATi,V,S,L,16xPCX,8Ch	5050 939 pin
AMD	AMD 64 - 3000+	Â 	                7275


ASUS	K8N	nForce3, noV,S,L,8xAGP	4600 754 pin
AMD	AMD 64 - 2800+	Â 	                5050


randomly board and cpu are selected so pls dont mind if your fav is not mentioned here.


----------



## indro (Sep 18, 2005)

Intel p4 at this point in the low end market has some good offerings like 2.6 ghz 800 mhz fsb LGA 775 and 64 bit enabled @ 6k.But the problems you will get is the non availablility of good motherboard for this one ,specially here in kolkata.Comparing this with the AMD 64's there are very nice motherboards out there.

Being an AMD fan for the last 4 yrs, still i belive its quite ironic to keep the price of a S939 1.8 ghz 3000+ @ 6800k .I can get  a P4 3.0 ghz LGA 775 for 200 more with 64 bit.PCMARK and encoding benchies with take lead big time on this comparison.

One more funny thing , 
You all know that AMD FX 57 is about 1066$ right  ? 
Well the opteron 254 processor @ 2.8 GHZ stock speed costs 826$ , does that make sense ? it does not to me !! 
If its in the 1xx series too , so someone might skip the idea of getting a fx 55 which is nearly the same price and go for a opteron and tyan or asus combo.

All i am saying is , i am a bit dis satisfied for the current pricing AMD has which is not at all compettive.It definitely has the performance advantage.
What do you think ?


----------



## abhijit_reddevil (Sep 18, 2005)

Yes, Indro, it would be nice if AMD would bring the prices of it's processors a little bit. I am an AMD fan myself. 3000+ S939 priced at 6.8k and 3200+ for around 9.6k is somewhat not competitive. It would be nice if the price of the former is reduced to less than 6k and less than 8k for the latter...Although I have no regrets. Mine will be an AMD platform S939, someday I might even have an FX-57!!! Haha, there is no harm in dreaming...

By the way is it true that all AMD 64 bit processors (S939) have 2000Mhz FSB?


----------



## indro (Sep 18, 2005)

You cant actually call it FSB , its a Hypertransport link from the Processor to the MoBo's I/O devices ,which is @ 1000 mhz full duplex ,which means 1000 *2 = 2000 mhz. Its very high.Thats probably the reason why AMD has the advantage of all the memory benchies even with DDR 400.

I personally feel that AMD needs some re thinking of their own architecture , reason being intel has a lot of upcoming stuff in Jan, AMD needs to add more links of Hypertransport , clock speed ,compettive pricing ,the upcoming models will be based on P-M from centrino's with VT enabled.AMD's design is already more than 2 yrs old.They only added some enhancements ,but the actual design remained the same.


----------



## Ablenwill (Sep 19, 2005)

Thanks Resident techie and Indro for good feedback my self being no one fan belive that Amd is going Intel way now when they are sure that they are getting more market share they are not doing competativ pricing. And you r right amd should come with some new design to keep the heat on and also keeping price perfect. But regarding 2.66 you can get an intel original or asus 915 chipset mobo easily that should not be problem.


----------



## Ablenwill (Sep 19, 2005)

Thanks Resident techie and Indro for good feedback my self being no one fan belive that Amd is going Intel way now when they are sure that they are getting more market share they are not doing competativ pricing. And you r right amd should come with some new design to keep the heat on and also keeping price perfect. But regarding 2.66 you can get an intel original or asus 915 chipset mobo easily that should not be problem.


----------



## QwertyManiac (Sep 19, 2005)

sidewinder said:
			
		

> QwertyManiac said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Good, but i like Intel more than AMD (I have an old one), the prescott heats a lot lesser than the AMD sempron wich i have...

and about new intel proccys, yep they do burn a hole.... 

Not necessarily Intel is for rich, but its good and worthy of its price (clock speeds) , many people still prefer it (Esp, Older Guys (not all) ).

I need more clockspeed so i need Intel, else AMD is fine too...

AMD must kinda market better for its sucess ...


----------



## indro (Sep 19, 2005)

QwertyManiac : intel themselves does not mark processors based on clock speeds anymore,they have 7 different versions of the 3.0 GHZ and 2.8 ghz processors,what explainations can you give in that QwertyManiac ?
Intel's highest clock speed is 3.8ghz , but their EE edition runs at 3.43,3.78 and the highest @ 3.2 ghz, So , those are supposed to be slower than the 3.8 P4 right  ?


----------



## hcp006sl (Sep 20, 2005)

QwertyManiac said:
			
		

> I need more clockspeed so i need Intel, else AMD is fine too...



But remember Clockspeed is not always an accurate mesaurement. This is what Apple call the MegaHertz Myth. The pentium 4 has 20 cycles and the G5 has only 7, making the G5 lightening fast compared to a pentium with double the clockspeed.


----------



## samjkd (Sep 22, 2005)

Hai

  I am having an Intel pc but thinking to for AMD. I have heard about heating problems in AMD. some says that heating issue is a past thing. Is it true.
one more thing Intel decodes 6 instructions per clock but AMD decodes 9 instructions in a clock that makes AMD with low clock speed to perform better than Intel cpu's that operate in high clock speeds.


----------



## abhijit_reddevil (Sep 22, 2005)

samjkd said:
			
		

> Hai
> 
> I am having an Intel pc but thinking to for AMD. I have heard about heating problems in AMD. some says that heating issue is a past thing. Is it true.
> one more thing Intel decodes 6 instructions per clock but AMD decodes 9 instructions in a clock that makes AMD with low clock speed to perform better than Intel cpu's that operate in high clock speeds.



Buddy do not think twice before switching over to AMD. The heating problems that you have heard are the thing of the past. AMD has rectified it a long time back. They have a patented technology called AMD Cool 'n Quiet through which the temperature of the core runs much cooler than the intel counterparts.

The best motherboards for AMD socket 939 are Asus A8N-E (separate PCI-express slot) and MSI RS480M2 (onboard ATI graphics). The best processor for users on a budget is the 3000+ venice core or 3200+ venice core if you up the budget a little bit further. I think the others agree with me.

And it has been discussed in other threads also that clock speed alone does not decide the speed at which the computer performs. The S939 3000+'s clock speed is only 1.8Ghz, but it is a superb performer.


----------



## robogeek (Sep 23, 2005)

*amd fan*

Iam also an AMD fan and bought and AMD pc from COMPAQ before three and half years back.But it just worked for two years(with huge noice like that I sometimes think that Iam switching CPU or MOTOR). Then many components have bulged on motherboard. I replaced and repaired it. Then it worked for another two months and again problems came. The repair men told that AMD is good but it is not opt for INDIAN CLIMATIC CONDITIONS. After thorough check of three days he told me that there is problem in PROCESSOR itself. Due to this motherboard affected. Due to all these problems both my CDROM and COMBO drive had failed. Now my CPU is equalled to JUNK. But many still now says AMD is better then INTEL.(Actually when I went to shop I saw more opting for AMD than INTEL). But still Iam suggesting AMD to my friends(who wants PC for less price)
BUT......








GOD knows the truth........!


----------



## rajas700 (Sep 23, 2005)

were to cast my vote?.still don't.


----------



## usmayur (Sep 23, 2005)

*AMD is better*

I have used following two processors
AMD 64 3000+
Intel P4 2.8 GHz
AMD was less expensive and gave me better performance.
The rest of the components of the 2 PCs were more or less similar. ie 512 MB DDR 400 RAM and onboard graphics.
So my vote definitely goes to AMD.


----------



## ak24 (Sep 23, 2005)

Please read this document first.

*www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050714/


----------



## Kniwor (Sep 24, 2005)

ak24 said:
			
		

> Please read this document first.
> 
> *www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050714/



This actually suggests nothing, real life performance is much different from those in which hyperthreading is extensively used, Hyperthreading is overhyped.


----------



## supersaiyan (Sep 24, 2005)

i personally go for amd right now. but if it was 1999 then i would go for intel. the thing is that the krypton series from amd which was an equivalent to a pentium 3 had heating problems and therefore intel made quite some profit then. now the tables are turned. now intel proccys have heating problems whereas amd does not. although amd architecture is two years old now still intel is getting their butt kicked.
so my vote is for amd.


----------



## Kniwor (Sep 24, 2005)

supersaiyan said:
			
		

> i personally go for amd right now. but if it was 1999 then i would go for intel. the thing is that the krypton series from amd which was an equivalent to a pentium 3 had heating problems and therefore intel made quite some profit then. now the tables are turned. now intel proccys have heating problems whereas amd does not. although amd architecture is two years old now still intel is getting their butt kicked.
> so my vote is for amd.



you are right on this one, these days intel processors are more power consuming, so more heat, there were days when u can reinstall an intel processor without a thermal paste, (ofcourse now u cant do that with any processor).


----------



## ak24 (Sep 28, 2005)

Does anyone of u guys know any authorized AMD dealer in mumbai. Secondly what will AMD 64 4000+ cost and which Motherboard is compatible but with integrated video. Also how much ram can i allocate to the video as in the case of intel 865gbf i can give a max of 96mb.


----------



## abhijit_reddevil (Sep 29, 2005)

ak24 said:
			
		

> Does anyone of u guys know any authorized AMD dealer in mumbai. Secondly what will AMD 64 4000+ cost and which Motherboard is compatible but with integrated video. Also how much ram can i allocate to the video as in the case of intel 865gbf i can give a max of 96mb.



With integrated video look no further than the MSI RS480M2-IL. For information on what CPU it supports look at this list. 4000+ is also compatible.

*www.msi.com.tw/program/products/mainboard/mbd/pro_mbd_cpu_support_detail.php?UID=639&kind=1


----------



## kumarmohit (Sep 29, 2005)

Oh no the eternal debate again..



			
				Kniwor said:
			
		

> ak24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



dude Hyperthreading is not overhyped its just hyped among the wrong category of userbase Actually u need special HT enabled sw (multithreaded sw) to take its entire advantage HT first of all Works only on Win XP pro not even on Home ed leave alone the ancient Win98(infact it makes PC unstable) to which most of the Home users are still stuck ( I am not really sure abt the variants of Win2000 and Win server system2003) or on specially customised Linux distros.
secondly HT is good for uses where heavy usage of processor runtime is needed like Audio encoding Video editing and rendering 3D animation and high end photo editing Where as most of the sw used for this like Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Audition, Adobe premiere Pro , maya , 3ds max etc are HT enbled common games MS Office most AV softwares in a nutshell most SW used in homes commonly  are just not HT aware which means HT or no HT its the same for them no performance improvement but if u want high end multimedia prdn HT is extremly helpful.

So for Multimedia content creation Intel is still clinging to its lead where as in all other fields AMD is way ahead of intel and now that its stared to support SSE3 the video encoding skills of an AMD proccy shud also become equal to Intel s HT


----------



## Kniwor (Sep 30, 2005)

Basically, hyperthreading is a latency hiding technique. While you may have a bunch of different programs open at once, the processor executes them one at a time. The scheduling is done very rapidly and the processor switches from task to task very quickly, so it looks like all of those programs are running at once when the processor is actually working on only one at a time. Hyperthreading allows the processor to work on two at a time, by allowing portions of the processor that would otherwise be idle to work on the second thread. That sounds good in theory, but for a number of reasons(contention caused by shared resources, and lack of software support mostly), it hasn't really worked out in practice.The only places where it really shines is in the case of a branch misprediction because the processor can continue to execute other threads while the needed data is retrieved from the system RAM.

And also, i dont see too may multi threaded applications right now that would increase the performance, you can definitely create an environment where u will see a lot of difference, but in practice......


----------



## supersaiyan (Oct 1, 2005)

i think ppl working with graphics designing should go for intel as the ht technology helps. whereas for gaming ppl should go for amd


----------



## Kniwor (Oct 2, 2005)

supersaiyan said:
			
		

> i think ppl working with graphics designing should go for intel as the ht technology helps. whereas for gaming ppl should go for amd



with SSE3 in the venice core, i dont think AMD is lagging behind even in graphic designing or anything.


----------



## azhararmar (Oct 4, 2005)

Kniwor said:
			
		

> supersaiyan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dude My Question to you is Have you Used any AMD PC Before if yes then what Configuration Do you Use if No then Dont Say anything rash. Firstly i Myself Was the Biggest fan of Intel i.e Before 2 Years and when of My friend Reccomended AMD to me. And Now I can Proudly Say AMD is the best. Intel is Nothing Compared to Amd.


----------



## azhararmar (Oct 4, 2005)

Long Live AMD....................................


----------



## Kniwor (Oct 9, 2005)

azhararmar said:
			
		

> Kniwor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's My list of machines i have...

System 1: Primary Sytem:

AMD Athlon 64 3000+ s939 Venice
MSI RS480M2-IL
1Gb DDR 400 (2x512 Mb) Hynix
250 Gb Seagate Barracuda
(Other things dont matter)

System2:

AMD 64 2800+ s754
ASUS K8N s754
512Mb DDR 400
160 Gb Seagate Barracuda


System 3:
AMD Athlon XP 2600+
MSI KM400A
512 Mb DDR 333 Hynix
160Gb Seagate Barracuda


Any my old intel mobo died just last week, it was kep in a box anyhow, because i had sold other parts of that old computer, i dont even care to see what intel sells these days. So how about ur comment......


----------

