Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD vs. Intel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by SRB View Post
    He He. I vote for AMD but right now useing Celeron(Intel) 667MHz@830MHz and I am in proces of buying new PC which will be Sempron(AMD) AM2 and Asus M2N-E(beautiful mb,look and oc).In budget PC segment Intel is dead, P4 Celeron is way behind Sempron on normal clock and when you get to overclock Sempron will give you much more because Sempron is much cooler(here I think on S754 and AM2).
    If at all possible, buy a S939 or AM2 processor, not the S754. All socket 754 platforms run single channel memory while all 939 and AM2 can run dual channel. Socket 939 is getting cheaper and cheaper. The board itself isn't much more than 754 boards. Also 939 has more upgrade paths. You can get a dual core in the future if you want. S754 has no dual core option.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by gunnut View Post
      If at all possible, buy a S939 or AM2 processor, not the S754. All socket 754 platforms run single channel memory while all 939 and AM2 can run dual channel. Socket 939 is getting cheaper and cheaper. The board itself isn't much more than 754 boards. Also 939 has more upgrade paths. You can get a dual core in the future if you want. S754 has no dual core option.
      ONLY AM2. I think I wrote Sempron 2800 AM2.
      S754 is dead and S939 giving still some signs of life but here (Serbia) S939 are same price as AM2 and we dont have Semprons only Athlons for S939.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by SRB View Post
        ONLY AM2. I think I wrote Sempron 2800 AM2.
        S754 is dead and S939 giving still some signs of life but here (Serbia) S939 are same price as AM2 and we dont have Semprons only Athlons for S939.
        Hmmm...I guess AMD will dump S754 for good. Now the question is will the Sempron line (or whatever they call their budget line) support dual channel memory? They could use the same socket but with dual channel memory disabled on the cheaper processors.
        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

        Comment


        • #19
          As far as I know Intel and Microsoft has a monoply.Microsoft games run on Intel but not on AMD.If you are a lover of AMD and you also love to play some strategic games from the Microsoft Studio then my brother you should get the Core 2 Duo.Go with the stream.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by joey View Post
            Intel with Core2Duo.
            Previous any Intel sucked,
            Amd ruled!!
            but with core 2 duo intel is on top again.

            this is a ever gambling...
            with intel taking over nvidia possibly and amd already took over ATI expect interesting things to happen.
            i'm on a opteron cpu now..
            no money to go core 2 duo :( .

            i'll rate this way

            P3 intel then came AMD K8 it ruled any P4.. with opetsrons and stuffs then came core 2 duo and it ruled over AM2.
            EXACTLY.

            AMD has had the lead BOTH in pure speed And in value for 3 years+.
            Intel was just huge and made deals to keep AMD down.
            Things like exclusivity with Dell until just months ago.. every computer co got $'s for putting the Intel Logo in their magazine of other media ads, etc.

            Now with Core 2 Intel has the lead for the first time since. At least with the 6600, 6700, and 6800.

            For my and most purposes you really don't need that much more than my two-year old Athlon 939-3500, 1GB Memory, 160g WD 7200 HD, Geforce 5700 256mb, Raidmax Virgo Case (temp Gauge) 2x120 Silent Fans 1x80mm Fan, 480 Watt power supply.
            Combine the above with a 5000 kbs Road Runner connection and even at triple the money for hardware it would still be difficult to notice the speed difference until and unless I use more punishing aps.

            The next few months might also see AMD regain the lead.. as I hear both companies are coming out with 4 core processors by Jan 1. We'll see.

            I figure I have at least another year on this .. and by that time we'll have MS Vista and it's Service Pack 2, 8 Core processors, and that will be the time.

            Right now, and even after two years I'm very happy.
            It's NOT like the old days when the CPU's were going from 250 to 400 to 833 and there was a huge and noticeable difference every 6 months.
            Last edited by abu afak; 03 Nov 06,, 06:41.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by stealth View Post
              As far as I know Intel and Microsoft has a monoply.Microsoft games run on Intel but not on AMD.If you are a lover of AMD and you also love to play some strategic games from the Microsoft Studio then my brother you should get the Core 2 Duo.Go with the stream.
              Oh really?

              Please explain how I'm able to run Microsoft games on 2 of my AMD machines?

              Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                Oh really?

                Please explain how I'm able to run Microsoft games on 2 of my AMD machines?

                Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
                Lol not all games i mean to say some games.I read somewhere that someone was trying to run a Microsoft game on AMD processor based system but the game wasnt running and the messege was that the game cannot run because the requirements of the games are not fulfilled, but the requirements were fulfilled and the processor was actually greater then that which was mentioned to run the game.

                I cannot onething about the core 2 duo that i have heard that if the processor is 3 gig then is one should put extra work on the system i.e upto 6 gigs then the cpu is gonna work how can that be possible.And if the processor is really 6 gig then they should sell it named as 6gig processor what we have to take with that if it is 3gig and can work as 6gig.The windows or the other operating system would be running the same as it would be running on the 3 gig or the 6 gig (if it was present)

                Comment


                • #23
                  All new Microsoft games will require Windows XP. I think that's the requirement you read about, not the processor. I tried running Rise of Legends and Age of Empires 3, both Microsoft games, on my Windows 2000 machine. They won't run and told me I need Windows XP.

                  The Core2 you're refering to is probably a dual core running at 3 GHz. Two cores, each running at 3 GHz, do not add together and become 6 GHz. They behave more like a dual processor machine. A single application runs just as fast on a single core machine as it does on a dual core machine, provided identical setup. Dual core really shines when you try to run multiple threads, like encoding a DVD and running a game at the same time. You will notice barely any lag compared to a single core machine trying to run those 2 applications at the same time.

                  Processor technology has hit a brick wall speed wise. We won't see doubling of clock speed every 2 years like what we have seen in the 90s. We will see more cores integrated into the same die to run multiple threads at the same time. What does that mean to the average user who browses the net, shops online, and shoots emails? Practically nothing.
                  "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                    Oh really?

                    Please explain how I'm able to run Microsoft games on 2 of my AMD machines?

                    Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
                    stealth is completely Clueless and just plain Wrong.
                    AMD, in fact, has been THE choice of Gamers in particular for years due to their superior speed.
                    Games are made for/compatible with operating systems (like MS, Apple, or Linux) NOT the processor.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Right now it makes no difference, the only thing you got to keep in mind comerability, some software runs better on amd some on intel.but unless you running virtual windtunnel you don't need intel duo, other than that go with whatever is cheaper at the moment.
                      "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by abu afak View Post
                        stealth is completely Clueless and just plain Wrong.
                        AMD, in fact, has been THE choice of Gamers in particular for years due to their superior speed.
                        Games are made for/compatible with operating systems (like MS, Apple, or Linux) NOT the processor.

                        I have found an article which is a bit old but gives support to my point.Here are some points which i have taken from it.


                        Windows + Intel = Wintel?

                        One of the most important partnerships in the global computer industry is that of Intel and Microsoft. Cheap PCs using processors (CPUs) from Intel, coupled with operating system (OS) software from Microsoft.The partnership was dubbed `Wintel' -- Windows from Microsoft, on computers with CPUs from Intel. The two firms are at $400 billion dollars in market capitalisation.
                        The rise of Intel and Microsoft is a remarkable episode in economic history. Both companies were fairly unimportant when IBM chose to back them for its launch of the IBM PC. Neither were the obvious, strong choice. Zilog and Motorola built better CPUs than Intel, and Digital Research did better software than Microsoft. IBM may have deliberately chosen weak partners to ensure control over core functions.
                        Through the 1980s and the 1990s, the Wintel partnership worked smoothly. Intel had the highest volumes of production of CPUs, and PCs were ubiquitous low--cost computers. In order to use PCs, there was no alternative but OSes from Microsoft. Microsoft kept releasing slower software, forcing users to require faster CPUs. As long as Windows worked only on Intel processors, Intel had an interest in supporting Microsoft. As long as non-Microsoft OSes did not run on Intel CPUs, Microsoft had an interest in supporting Intel.
                        The first change puts Intel in a bind. To stay in the treadmill of CPU design, Intel needs customers who are hungry for speed. If the CPU business does not move fast enough into newer CPUs, Intel's profits will be wiped out by the clones. For years, Intel relied on users trying to do simple tasks with ever--slower Microsoft software to fuel sales of high--end CPUs. Today, that process is not working so well.



                        Here is something more about the Wintel

                        MICROSOFT HAS A MONOPOLY
                        34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.

                        It's official. Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop OS market for Intel-compatible PCs. From what I have seen, this point has sometimes been misunderstood. MS does not have a monopoly on Web browser applications - although they are getting there - or office suites, the monopoly is just on the Desktop OS. Also, having a monopoly does not mean 100% dominance. There are a growing number of Linux and BeOS users, but just try walking into any corporate office and talk about switching their PC users from Windows to any other OS and see how fast you get your ass kicked out. The full FoF has an excellent and lengthy description of exactly why Microsoft is legally a monopoly.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          It still doesn't say you can't run an app on AMD but you can on Intel.

                          The whole point of AMD processors is to be compatible with Intel. AMD started out by license manufacturing Intel processors. Intel then revoked the license because they wanted all the money. So AMD reverse engineered Intel processors. For a long time, AMD products weren't as fast as Intel stuff, both clock speed and performance. Then AMD caught up to Intel and then surpassed it with their K7 series. AMD refined the product and added 64bit instruction set and that's the Athlon64 series we see today.

                          Intel just passed AMD on the performace level with their Core2 series. But then again the current AMD processors are 3 years old. It'll be interesting to see what AMD has for next year.
                          "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Intel security

                            Intel is building a new plant in Ho Chi Minh City. From a security stand point how is this going to effect US military purchases of computers and related processing equipment?
                            Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
                            (Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Everyone's talking about speed and price and performance. Well, I think I'm going to be the odd man out.

                              I bought AMD because it's the lesser of two evils as far as the gradual destruction of the public domain and grass roots culture creation. It's still a losing battle and gets harder every year to do good production work without expensive or homemade DAC equipment.

                              They say it's all to make it slightly more difficult for a 12 year old to make a sharable digital copy of the latest Pop Tart's manufactured noise... I think it's to prevent niche competition killing big media by a thousand cuts.
                              Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I'll go with AMD. It was all-round better until Intel brought the Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme. Right now I'm on an Athlon X2 4400. But my favorite processor is the STI(Sony/Toshiba/IBM) Cell, which outperforms all current desktop processors and is only found in the Playstation 3. It's supposed to be 3-12 times faster than any desktop processor.
                                Last edited by hello; 14 Nov 06,, 01:33.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X