AMD or Intel??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by +Daemon+

here we go again..

---

Indeedy ;) .. but I'd also add it depends on where you want to use it & what for, though generally an AMD fan (on the bang for buck theory already expressed) when its not my money I take a more measured approach & then I have to say Intel, not because its really better accross the board with performance or anything but their motherboard support is generally much better, which with certain AMD & various chipset combos can definately be less than perfect, but that isn't really at all to do with the chips themselves, but I can bet it colours others perceptions of which is best ;)

Intel > AMD

reliability always wins for me.

everytime i see an AMD processor or a chipset that supports one there seem to be problems...

I have been lucky so far with my 1800xp. The price is definatly what sold me. If I hade money burning a hole in my pocket, I would go with Intel.

never had a problem an amd chip, had them since 300 mhz- dual amd mp 2000+ intel chips had some problems, key is to get non-oem only retail

I vote intel for reliability reasons as well as they have a much easier return policy, not that I've ever had to return more than 1 intel cpu in my life, but from the couple RMA's I've done with AMD, they can kiss my white :butt:

my first intel is my game lappy p4 2.8 ghz w/ht thing is its just as fast as my amd xp 2500+ :/ but I do like it right now, I would not buy a intel chip cause the performance sux for the $$$ but I do give intel credit on the ht that really does speed things up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by +Daemon+

...but I do give intel credit on the ht that really does speed things up

---

This is what I'm talking about. It's not like it used to be, where you either like AMD or Intel just out of spite. The Intel P4 w/ HT is clearly the better choice based on overall performance for desktop computing bar none. It's just a fact.

And yeah yeah,.. now I'm going to hear, "What about the AMD 64 blah blah blah". Well cool,.. if you want to go out and purchase a whole new mobo just to have this, then knock urself out (so much for saving money). I'll stick with my P4 w/ HT thanks very much. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WebHead

This is what I'm talking about. It's not like it used to be, where you either like AMD or Intel just out of spite. The Intel P4 w/ HT is clearly the better choice based on overall performance for desktop computing bar none. It's just a fact.

And yeah yeah,.. now I'm going to hear, "What about the AMD 64 blah blah blah". Well cool,.. if you want to go out and purchase a whole new mobo just to have this, then knock urself out (so much for saving money). I'll stick with my P4 w/ HT thanks very much. :D

---

So that's a 'webby fact' is it ? :p .. the benchmarks have it the other way around & generally any new cpu purchase means matched board & memory too, some of us over here in the non webby world will of course either re-use the entire set together or sell them all off together, a cpu on its own ain't no use to man nor webby ! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by confus-ed

So that's a 'webby fact' is it ? :p .. the benchmarks have it the other way around & generally any new cpu purchase means matched board & memory too, some of us over here in the non webby world will of course either re-use the entire set together or sell them all off together, a cpu on its own ain't no use to man nor webby ! :D

---

Ok,.. besides the AMD 64,.. please tell me which processor out-performs a P4 w/ HT. I can tell you the answer -- None, which is exactly why AMD rushed this wimpy AMD 64 out the door as soon as they could because it's the only thing they have that compares to a P4. They knew they were going to fall seriously behind if they didn't make this move. Now Intel will examine their processor,.. make their own 64-bit processor which will be ten times better for a slightly higher cost,.. then check-mate, game over.

How about a zeon ? :p .. :thumbs2:

Wimpy amd 64 my backside, the 'rubbish ones' AMD 'nearly 64' for socket 954 are as good/better than a new P4 (in bang for buck terms way better), & the 'real ones' the 64 fx variety (socket 939) are up in zeon land for the money & performance (better!) ..

Intels performance bubble has been busted good & propper, we are now seeing supped up versions of p4's with larger cache sizes in attempt to catch up ! so they know too ..

Hyper threading doesn't even have an effect in loads of stuff, you need to tailor the application, its like all that speculative fetch stuff they got so excited about before, its 'brill' if your application takes advantage of it correctly, but no use whatsoever if it doesn't, infact on occassion counter productive.

& oh Intel have their own 64 bit chip already when you've finnished telling me all about the things I already know about from inside your 'must back Intel stance' - its called Itanium

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WebHead

This is what I'm talking about. It's not like it used to be, where you either like AMD or Intel just out of spite. The Intel P4 w/ HT is clearly the better choice based on overall performance for desktop computing bar none. It's just a fact...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by +Daemon+

my first intel is my game lappy p4 2.8 ghz w/ht thing is its just as fast as my amd xp 2500+ :/ but I do like it right now, I would not buy a intel chip cause the performance sux for the $$$ but I do give intel credit on the ht that really does speed things up

---

I see.

So the Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (real clock of 2800 MHz with a 800 MHz FSB) is equal in speed to the AMD Athlon XP 2500+ (real clock speed of 1.8GHz and 166 MHz FSB) and therefore... the better choice?


Hehehe. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by confus-ed

...& oh Intel have their own 64 bit chip already when you've finnished telling me all about the things I already know about from inside your 'must back Intel stance' - its called Itanium

---

Yeah, that was an excellent product... for babies! :p


Intel couldn't get 64 bit right the first and probably not the second time either:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11..._itanium_kick/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a d e p t

I see.

So the Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (real clock of 2800 MHz with a 533 MHz FSB) is equal in speed to the AMD Athlon XP 2500+ (real clock speed of 1.8GHz and 166 MHz FSB) and therefore... the better choice?


Hehehe. :D

---

Well,.. I mine is an 800MHz fsb. Just wanted to point that out. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a d e p t

Yeah, that was an excellent product... for babies! :p

---

Lol ;) ..I never said they were any good ! I was just fighting 'webby fact' :D- now there's this dude I occasionally do work for who thinks 'Intel, Intel ,Intel' like as in the 'badger song' (& I think he's also been on the mushrooms far too much as well - if you don't know what I mean {not necessarily Adept - just anyone} -try this Badger :D ) & he's got a few of the first ones in some servers, but he's so 'Intel devoted' he won't hear of any other either - do you fancy a trip over here & tell him that ? -everytime I do, he scowls & threatens to never ever use me again ! :eek2: