 What Processor Do You Prefer? |
|
|
|
|
  |
 Oct 24 2005, 11:39 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Super Member  Group: Members Posts: 425 Joined: 24-September 05 Member No.: 12,212  |
QUOTE(T100 @ Oct 24 2005, 02:57 AM) I will stick to Intel. Although Athlon outperforms Intel's counterparts in many of the PC mark tests and even Super Pi test, Athlon is not as good in Front Side Bus and memory management. Intel P4 can take up dual channel bandwidth but Athlon is a little bit slow in Ram test. Another bad thing about Athlon is the L2 cache. While intel can provide 2MB cache, most of AMD CPUs only provide 512K, which is only that povided by Athlon. I think CPU's performance depends much on L2 cache and frequency, so I still sticking with Intel. The worst thing about AMD is that it is trying to market its CPUs by a performance value, say 3000+, but the clock speed is much lower then 3G. I really don't like this strategy. If AMD is so proud of its CPUs, why not compute with Intel on the same ground?  The reason why they put 3000+ because they run on a different theory. AMD's specialty is making them run at lower clocks and emulate the actual speed they run at, conserving energy. AMD's have 2mb L2 cache as well, maybe you should do a little more research on a topic. Almost every new AMD 64 cpu provides 1mb L2 cache now. And the biggest difference between these 2 processors, is that for 3000+ you get at the same price as an Intel 3.0ghz, you get 64bit capabilities. You don't seem to get that's the whole new thing. In a few years, most computers will probably be running 64bit. Most servers nowadays run on 64bit processors, but AMD has made the headstart to have them at home for the same cheap price. Xeons and Opterons have used 64 bit for a while, but to get one of those for home use is a waste of money. That's why AMD has their Athlon 64's. |
 |
 
|
|
Oct 26 2005, 01:18 AM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 26-October 05 Member No.: 13,382 |
in fact, AMD Athlon 64 3000+ is cheaper than Intel P4 3.0GHz (comparing AMD socket 939 and Intel socket 775). that's always been the case, yet AMD has always had, and always have better performance than Intel, thats just the way it is. I have an AMD processor and will NEVER purchace a different type of processor. even when Intel P5 comes out, AMD will unleash such a beast, and it will be cheaper, and have better performance!
ChonChon |
|
|
|
|
Oct 26 2005, 02:43 AM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Newbie [Level 3] Group: Members Posts: 48 Joined: 23-October 05 Member No.: 13,290 |
QUOTE(amhso @ Oct 24 2005, 06:39 PM) The reason why they put 3000+ because they run on a different theory. AMD's specialty is making them run at lower clocks and emulate the actual speed they run at, conserving energy. AMD's have 2mb L2 cache as well, maybe you should do a little more research on a topic. Almost every new AMD 64 cpu provides 1mb L2 cache now. And the biggest difference between these 2 processors, is that for 3000+ you get at the same price as an Intel 3.0ghz, you get 64bit capabilities. You don't seem to get that's the whole new thing. In a few years, most computers will probably be running 64bit. Most servers nowadays run on 64bit processors, but AMD has made the headstart to have them at home for the same cheap price. Xeons and Opterons have used 64 bit for a while, but to get one of those for home use is a waste of money. That's why AMD has their Athlon 64's. wow.. i was about to say the same thing... i cant believe that people actually say something without knowing what theyre talking about... it may be 2.0 or 2.2 GHz AMD, but its name is in comparison with the intel model's speed thank u amhso... alas! a smart person! |
|
|
|
|
Nov 1 2005, 11:37 AM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Newbie [Level 1] Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 1-November 05 Member No.: 13,656 |
I've heard that the P4's architechure makes it slower than the Athlon, even though it has higher clock speeds. Evidently the Athlon can do more instructions per cycle or something like that...is there any thruth to this rumor?
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 16 2005, 11:23 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Newbie [Level 1] Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 16-November 05 Member No.: 14,379 |
AMD processors render graphics with amazing speed. Also, the new 64-bit processors are amazing. I cannot believe the speed I've experienced with them. Not to mention that AMD is one of the "Underdogs" in computer chips. AMD prices are much lower vs Intel. I have experienced more reliable computing with AMD than any other processor I've tried.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 16 2005, 11:27 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Member [Level 3] Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 9-November 05 From: Canadian Wilderness Member No.: 14,034 |
Ive never had any thing else but Intel processors. But I would like to try an MD next since im really into gaming and that stuff and AMD is muh better tan Intel when it commes to games.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 13 2006, 09:42 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Newbie [Level 2] Group: Members Posts: 35 Joined: 13-February 06 Member No.: 18,583 |
i will stick to my amd becuse i have a fast processor and i dont want any thing more than it
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 19 2006, 03:22 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Newbie [Level 2] Group: Members Posts: 35 Joined: 18-February 06 Member No.: 18,833 |
I know the AMD processors are fast but in my opinion the heat too much! So what would you reccomend?
I was thinking to stay on intel ! They cost less they don't heat too much but they are a little bit slower! But that just me 
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 19 2006, 03:25 PM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 6-February 06 Member No.: 18,325 |
AMD Turion 64 Bit,
It does everything I want, and I've never had a problem. Intel use to freeze for me etc. |
|
|
|