AMD vs. Intel

Jonbo298 · 03-02-2004, 06:10 AM

What's your preference? Hopefully this thread doesn't flame out, but I would like to see everyone's preference.

I prefer AMD because I get more bang for my buck, IMO. And they are nicer to overclock too.

Null · 03-02-2004, 09:47 AM

right now... still Intels P4, they got the higher speed at the lower price (not higest over all but the highest amd 64bit is like double the price)

they're nicer for overclocking too, since they run cooler, overheat less, require less fans.

honestly the differences are so small that neither has a huge advantage over the other, just small little things.

Blackmane · 03-02-2004, 11:06 AM

I have always prefered AMD, and they have never given me any reason to switch, so I'm going to say AMD.

Jonbo298 · 03-02-2004, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Null

right now... still Intels P4, they got the higher speed at the lower price (not higest over all but the highest amd 64bit is like double the price)

they're nicer for overclocking too, since they run cooler, overheat less, require less fans.

honestly the differences are so small that neither has a huge advantage over the other, just small little things.

P4's can overheat easier I thought. Because Intel doesnt recommend going over 40c otherwise problems might occur (as far as I know). But AMD can go up to I believe 70c without major problems. But meh, I have a **** load of fans just because I want to even though they aren't needed

And I thought the highest proc. for the desktop right now was the P4 Extreme Edition? (waste of money I might add

)

Null · 03-02-2004, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonbo298

P4's can overheat easier I thought. Because Intel doesnt recommend going over 40c otherwise problems might occur (as far as I know). But AMD can go up to I believe 70c without major problems. But meh, I have a **** load of fans just because I want to even though they aren't needed

And I thought the highest proc. for the desktop right now was the P4 Extreme Edition? (waste of money I might add

)

what they recommend and what they can do are seperate things.

the P4's dont over heat easily tho. they have safty features that will turn thier own speed down if they feel themselves getting too hot.

AMD's might have that now too. last AMD i had a 1ghz, and it shut down the computer once and a while cuz it got too hot. had to buy more fans.

And im pretty sure the AMD 64 is the highest at the moment because its the first 64bit processor. all others are still 32bit.

which isnt nessicary cuz all computer apps are still 32bit based so you cant take advantage of the 64bit amd. however it does still run 32bit apps slightly faster.

Canyarion · 03-02-2004, 11:16 AM

My AMD need a kinda noisy cooler and I don't really need the extra power, so I wish I had picked an Intel....
Of course I could solve it with a new cooler...

bobcat · 03-02-2004, 04:00 PM

I have an Athlon 1.4ghz cpu and have never had problems with it. Same goes for my PIII.

So I'm tied on this 1

Jonbo298 · 03-02-2004, 06:53 PM

meh, my AMD won't be overheating anytime soon since i have the best heatsink and my 92mm tornado

And I did some checking on newegg.com. The most expensive AMD proc. is $745. Which is the retail Athlon 64 FX-51
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...log=343&depa=1

The most expensive P4 is the Extreme Edition which is $939.
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...log=343&depa=1

But in reality, no one needs an FX-51 or an EE. I just want an Athlon64 3200+ or 3400+ after the 939 pin comes out in the next 2 months or so.

Jason1 · 03-02-2004, 07:43 PM

Ive had both types over the years. No real opinion though.

Null · 03-02-2004, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonbo298

But in reality, no one needs an FX-51 or an EE. I just want an Athlon64 3200+ or 3400+ after the 939 pin comes out in the next 2 months or so.

no one needs any of em for a while.

my next will be when the 64bit apps really start rolling out. and the 64bit games and stuff to take advantage of such a chip.

IMO, by the time the 64bit wave comes along. theres going to be new 64bit processors from both AMD and Intel so the AMD64 right now is just that much more pointless. They rushed that out to get a jump in speed on current programs

Jonbo298 · 03-02-2004, 08:01 PM

Yes, AMD rushed to 64 bit, but who cares.

AMD is finally staying ahead for once. I'm waiting until the next pinset comes out since I know the current 64's will seem minoot.

I just want an athlon64 because my 2500+ oc'ed to 3200+ seems like not enough for me, heh. Even though I'm still perfectly fine with it, I just have the feeling I want to upgrade.

Yoda9864 · 03-02-2004, 08:24 PM

Actually, the 64-bit chips run games hell of a lot faster than any 32-bit chip (at least comparing athlons to athlons). The athlon 64-bit 3000+ is only a tad over $200, so it's really not that much more. I will be upgrading to that pretty soon here from my 2500+ barton.

IMO, you get more bang for your buck with AMD.

Null · 03-02-2004, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoda9864

Actually, the 64-bit chips run games hell of a lot faster than any 32-bit chip (at least comparing athlons to athlons). The athlon 64-bit 3000+ is only a tad over $200, so it's really not that much more. I will be upgrading to that pretty soon here from my 2500+ barton.

IMO, you get more bang for your buck with AMD.

by the charts i wouldnt say its a hell of a lot more. more like fair amount more.

UT 2004 tho they will be making a 64bit version of it to run even better on 64 bit processors

Happydude · 03-02-2004, 10:54 PM

i've heard the AMD is more of a gaming processor then intel, and thats mostly what my comp is for...so thats what i prefer.