amd or intel processer

[Mike_182]

well i f my memory serves me correct AMD brought out the 1st 64Bit desktop processor, Intels desktop processors didnt go 64bit until ages afterwards

the Athlon 64 made the pentium 4 look like naff all squared wen it 1st came out!!!

the conversion is directed at desktop/laptop processors, not servers!!!!

The Athlon 64 has been out for ages, granted, but the EM64T extension set has been in place just as long! There STILL isn't sufficient backing to warrant it though, and at the peak of it all Compaq/HP and Dell machines that shipped with Athlon 64s had a load of hardware that didn't have 64-bit support so it was all a bit pointless! The move to the Athlon 64 badge did nothing for the desktop market as they are exactly the same processors as the old ones they replaced, just with AMD64 instruction set added.

And you dragged servers into this - read what you wrote. Laptop processors-wise ever since Pentium M the AMD mobile range has been pitiful. Much more power hungry, much hotter and as such throttled down and ran much slower.

Your memory serves you wrong, young apprentice.

 

[Mike_182]

plus any motherboard i use is AM2+ compliant

Nobody asked you about the motherboards YOU use, just browse the internet for a 'cheap AMD motherboard' and you have to buy one that runs Phenom and AM2+, rather than just buying an AM2 board.

End of.

 

[MikeyK18]

i have worked with both intel n amd platforms on custom built systems in pro photographers, and they have said the pentium based systems arent as good as the AMD

thats coming from the customer, i give them the chocie, they tell me wat works best with ther hardware (hassellblanc cameras, abt 27-30k worth of equipement)

the dell/hp/compaq (all branded systems) build out of a cheap crap motherboard so yea they wouldnt be as good

which is y i custom build.

better motherboards work better with the cpu

 

[Mike_182]

i have worked with both intel n amd platforms on custom built systems in pro photographers, and they have said the pentium based systems arent as good as the AMD

thats coming from the customer, i give them the chocie, they tell me wat works best with ther hardware (hassellblanc cameras, abt 27-30k worth of equipement)

the dell/hp/compaq (all branded systems) build out of a cheap crap motherboard so yea they wouldnt be as good

which is y i custom build.

And it still couldn't buy you a dictionary.

And as I've said time and time again, it is applicable to the intended use. Photography is very memory intensive, so they will benefit from a cheap AMD system over a cheap Intel system. However I challenge you to show me an AMD system with anything like the throughput of my 790i demonstrator, or my 780i gaming rig which quite frankly makes mincemeat of them.

If you go all out budget-wise, Intel win, end. If you buy cheap to mid range, then your intended application is very much what you need to look at. Memory intensive = AMD, Processor and thread intensive = Intel.

 

[MikeyK18]

put your dummy back in

& take a chill pill

a big gaming rig like u have wouldnt suit everyone

so all your saying makes sense to you, but not to the person who asked a simple question regarding pc processors

time to grow up

 

[Mike_182]

put your dummy back in

& take a chill pill

a big gaming rig like u have wouldnt suit everyone

so all your saying makes sense to you, but not to the person who asked a simple question regarding pc processors

time to grow up

That's why my first several comments in this thread were aimed at someone of his level of knowledge. After you decided to tell me how computers work and when things happen (I was building computers back when they shipped with 386 and Overdrives and the like, and when a company called Cyrix was on the scene) I gave you the full blown explanation behind it.

The AMD processors are only valued by fanboys - they have their advantages but they aren't applicable to every situation as I've stated above on several occasions, and in a laptop their advantages become miniscule, when you take into account their disadvantages.

In this particular case, the added memory bandwidth of the AMD Turion (which is debatable at best anyway!) is insignificant compared to the increased battery drain, added heat (and noise of the required cooler) and lesser processing capabilities.

Oh, and one last nail in the AMD fanboys coffin (I know it's been resolved, but it's always entertaining):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf0VuRG7MN4

 

[MikeyK18]

yea and i agree, i also have been building systems the length of time you have, i remember the cyrix 386 processors very well as well, as a matter of fact i still have a couple and a couple radeon all in wonder tv/graphic cards that you spoke about earlier, the majority of people i deal with are photographers, in which the AMD is better suited for, i myself dont do gaming or anything that high powered, so my own system doesnt bother me

and i understand wher you are coming from because you obviously are a hardcore gamer

if you look back it wasnt me that that tried to "explain how a pc works" i just stated my opinion on the AMD/Intel CPU's

as for laptops i wud take a Intel core2 duo over anything else as they are the only decent laptop processor out there for good money

 

[Vern]

[YOUTUBE]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JiGsPd3kmI8[/YOUTUBE]



bah

 

[Daz]

Everyone arguing about which is best is absolute nonsense.
Like I keep saying (and I'm going to say again) it depends on the application.

You choose your application, you look at benchmarks, you buy the suited processor.

ClioSport? Web and Database.. Opterons came out on top in almost everything when I bought the server, so guess what I did? (No, I didn't buy Xeon's )

Desktop PC? I'd buy Intel. A few years ago, every single gaming PC should have had an Athlon64 - why? Because it was better at the time.

It's useless arguing about something which is different for every single person..

I'd also like to say, I could install two PCs for the average user, one AMD and one the equivilent (as close as) Intel, and they wouldn't any difference in general use..

 

[Mike_182]

I'll let you in on a secret - I'm no gamer! I'm a systems builder and server technician/designer, and I also review hardware for a couple of sites where necessary...

I only rarely play on Crysis on PC, rest of the time I'm an XBox boy! I work with computers so tend to try avoid them!

 

[ivegota16v]

lol some of these comments are so wrong!

amd more efficent in servers! better memory access lol!! what a joke!! intels cpus use less power and have faster memory access in everyway!! Intel are currently down to 45nm with High K AMD cant ever get anywhere near it!! the core 2 architecture is worlds ahead of anything amd can offer!

i can go right into the details here but end of the day intel are much much better than AMD in every aspect for chips, AMD's quad core is so behind our quad core its unreal. a simple way to look is check out AMD's stock price to see how great there chips are!!

Balls, fool.

AMD's Memory Transport is a long way faster than the Intel equivalent - why do you think Nehalem (and it's 32nm successor) is pegged to move to an onboard memory controller.

Take your pub knowledge home, AMD aren't great but they have advantages in certain areas and if I were to build a database server to be a mother of all servers I'd use an AMD chip due to the way it handles memory better. If I were to game I'd use a Core2 as they are better at threaded processing.

And the 45nm chips have only just started going to market, with a Q6600-replacement 'due soon' (Intel's best selling Quad core processor).

See http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2071433,00.asp - AMD aren't far off the ball and are going about it with much more specific aims than Intel did.

as much as i would like to get into a big geek fest war with you about this about my "pub knowledge" and the AMD memory transport the fact is Intels chips run cooler, use less power and perform better - i guess you know that if you run a data centre you main costs is the power bill? therefore the more power efficent chips cost you so much less then AMDS - performace per watt is where the money is

shall i quote some market segment shares as well? i can go one for a while due to the fact I WORK FOR INTEL in the TMG who design the chips....... so its not really just pub knowledge...

feel free to PM as there are obviously things i cant discuss on here!

 

[J203425]

^^ pretty unbiased source if he works for intel

 

[ivegota16v]

^^ pretty unbiased source if he works for intel

lol

true true


in all fairness amd were kicking our ass a few years back, but now we genuinely have a better product! and some very good new ones coming as well!!

 

[sn00p]

Intel sold off their best processor, at least for the market segment I work in....

.....but then to me having 128 kibibyte of memory is a luxury!

 

[Mike_182]

Balls, fool.

AMD's Memory Transport is a long way faster than the Intel equivalent - why do you think Nehalem (and it's 32nm successor) is pegged to move to an onboard memory controller.

Take your pub knowledge home, AMD aren't great but they have advantages in certain areas and if I were to build a database server to be a mother of all servers I'd use an AMD chip due to the way it handles memory better. If I were to game I'd use a Core2 as they are better at threaded processing.

And the 45nm chips have only just started going to market, with a Q6600-replacement 'due soon' (Intel's best selling Quad core processor).

See http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2071433,00.asp - AMD aren't far off the ball and are going about it with much more specific aims than Intel did.

as much as i would like to get into a big geek fest war with you about this about my "pub knowledge" and the AMD memory transport the fact is Intels chips run cooler, use less power and perform better - i guess you know that if you run a data centre you main costs is the power bill? therefore the more power efficent chips cost you so much less then AMDS - performace per watt is where the money is

shall i quote some market segment shares as well? i can go one for a while due to the fact I WORK FOR INTEL in the TMG who design the chips....... so its not really just pub knowledge...

feel free to PM as there are obviously things i cant discuss on here!

Actually, if you go through many performance-dependant databases they all run on Opterons. Not taking wind out of your sails but if you're spending the amount of money that I'm talking about on a server, you don't give a flying on the running costs, otherwise you'd cluster DL380s...

I'm talking about the big, 16-processor systems as opposed to the Xeon stuff.

Although personally, if I were running a datacentre I'd be using a 9000-series

 

[ChrisR]

As Daz says, at this point in time for desktop chips intel are the favourite, but in the past AMD have been the must have chips for a period. Core 2 Duo chips seem to do the job very nicely.

6502 or Motorola 68000 series ftw

 

[172boost]

It's all very well forking out for the Core2Duo but would the average user actually notice any difference whatsoever? I very much doubt it!

Yes.

AMD vs Intel speedwise (actual speed, not clock or number of cores) the Intels run a huge amount cooler... Making quieter machines... Which believe it or not makes a difference.

I can hear my old laptop on from 10m away - and it's not too loud (only 2 years old in August). The latest laptops (like my work D630 2.6Ghz Core2Duo) are much quieter.

And $ for $, AMD has been licked. They know they have, they're still trying to claw back with the joke that is Phenom. It didn't even dent Intel Q-series sales.

And as for servers, our entire room is full of Intels so currently I've no benchmark, but a couple of years ago AMD overtook Intel very briefly before the new line of Xeons (prior to the current) took hold and ripped their market to shreds. Hence why they're now sat with ATI (who IMO are also failing miserably!).

ATI had one product that was worth buying IMO - it's All In Wonders and TV Wonders. Graphics-wise since the 6*00s they've been pipped at every post by nVidia. Same story on the business workstation front. And ATI have stopped doing the AIWs and the TV Wonders are rockinghorses**t!

Spot on mate.
I don't use AMD just for that reason, they run a few degrees hotter than Intel so if your after reliability then go for Intel. Having said that, there isn't a massive difference between the two just make sure you get a decent heat sink/fan if running AMD.
P.S. I'm only talking in basic desktop terms here for the sake of the original thread.