Jump to content

Which CPU is Best?


pitbull481
 Share

Recommended Posts

You also have to be aware that AMD is also releasing new mobile processors. Even though they don't beat the Pentium M in speed, they have other advantages. A far lower energy consumption for the new Turion line for example.

In desktop PCs the only place where Intel repeatedly beats AMD is video encoding. Oh, and price as well. :-P

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

ya ghostmaster Tomshardware.com.com did a benchmark with the intel pentium M 2.12GHz a AMD64 4800+ and the intel P4 EE 3.73GHz and the pentium M won in all test. They played quake 3 at 640x480. The pentium M was faster by 5-12% then both the intel and AMD. I use a pentium M 2GHz at work and that processor renders video very fast. I can't wait for the pentium 5 basted on the pentium M clocked at 3GHz. That will be fast.

hears the link:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4-10.html

I don't see a 4800+ or a 3.73GHZ P4 EE in that test.  Anyways, none of the AMD CPUs are overclocked.  I'm not that impressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ya ghostmaster Tomshardware.com.com did a benchmark with the intel pentium M 2.12GHz a AMD64 4800+ and the intel P4 EE 3.73GHz and the pentium M won in all test. They played quake 3 at 640x480. The pentium M was faster by 5-12% then both the intel and AMD. I use a pentium M 2GHz at work and that processor renders video very fast. I can't wait for the pentium 5 basted on the pentium M clocked at 3GHz. That will be fast.

hears the link:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4-10.html

That's games.. What about normal work on max cpu load on default factory settings (non-oc)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used different Intel and AMD chips...both at home and in college (I'm a networking student) running benchmarks of the two and can say that both companies make good CPUs. I'm talking about the top of the line CPU's they make, not the cheaper ones like Intel Celeron. I personally like the AMD better based off my experience with the two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you guys are missing some of the basic differences in the amd vs. intel fight

amd's have a fsb that makes intel look like f0015

while intel has a faster clock speed

this means the amds are much more responive the intel (really when it comes to responiveness amds kill intel)

but intel can handles larger processing loads at a single time

so for most people amds are much more suitable

Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont play video games on computer. all i use the computer is for email, use internet, downloading, transfer pics from digi camera to pc, school work (microsoft office), listen to music (dont need 5.1 sound, i got it hooked up to my 500 watt stereo  :D ). i just want to be able to programs to open fast.

the one im using now is a dell. and the one i want to replace is a gateway 310xl (i love, but got screwed up and cant fix it)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get a Sony Vaio, they're a joke.

I agree, there expensive, you can get a better computer from a different company or custom build for the same price, or even lower..and i heard they break quickly.

Edit: woot, 200th post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont play video games on computer. all i use the computer is for email, use internet, downloading, transfer pics from digi camera to pc, school work (microsoft office), listen to music (dont need 5.1 sound, i got it hooked up to my 500 watt stereo

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure why we are flaming here..

There are 2 different chips on the market right now.. Single core 32bit and dual core 64bit.. Both AMD and Intel have offerings.  The myth that AMD is less reliable than Intel.. False.. Tomshardware just ran a test on this.. it was found that AMD is 30% more efficent than a top of the line intel chip..  AMD's quality had improved greatly from the days of the k6-2.. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050714/stresstest-02.html#buying_tips_amd_more_efficient

So what should you be buying if you're about to shell out a large sum of money for one of the top systems? In the business sector, an Intel system would be the better choice, especially considering the better availability and service offered by partners and solution providers. As far as power goes, Intel is an inefficient energy-guzzler with up to 30 percent more power consumption than the AMD system.

For enthusiasts, meanwhile, the choice is clear: The Athlon 64 X2 system has the best performance when running individual power-hungry applications and shines with exemplary stability. Generally, the same cannot be said for the Intel system: it only worked without a problem with boards with an Intel chipset - the nForce4 SLI setup for the Intel platform still causes difficulties.

An important topic, particularly in the professional arena, is system stability, and there were a few surprises in store during the stress test. In the Intel system a total of three boards with NVIDIA's nForce4 SLI chipset caused problems. Outages were frequent, and in one case the voltage regulator even blew. Help came in the form of a combination of an Intel CPU with Intel chipset. However, the integrated SLI graphics setup is then unusable.

The end result was that the final configuration is the safest bet - that Intel system worked for 14 days without a hitch. No problems were encountered in the AMD system though, and the nForce4 SLI setup can be considered stable here. The only piece of bad news is that the AMD platform could not be switched off by software after a long period of operation.

At the end of the day, we now know that an Intel Pentium 840 EE must be combined with a board including the Intel 955X chipset. We do not recommend using a board with the nForce4 SLI chipset from NVIDIA.

The AMD platform offers just one choice, which is also very stable: the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ with a board featuring the nForce4 SLI chipset from NVIDIA. The results of our stress test show that the nForce4 SLI chipset is better suited to the AMD platform.

So it looks like Intel might have reliablity problems..  if you can run it on a nForce4 setup.. kinda pointless if you dont want the shell out large sums of money for an Intel motherboard...

If you're looking for a high-performance system for 3D games, you could do no better than to go with the AMD system. In particular, it does not create problems in the SLI setup with the nForce4 SLI chipset. The extra performance produced by the increased frame rate makes itself noticeable above all in mainstream 3D games.

The downside of the Intel system is the automatic deactivation of SLI mode when using the 955X chipset from Intel - the NVIDIA graphics driver is the guilty party here.

So Intel might be a contender in a while once new drivers are released.. however, we all know that AMD has had the gaming market for some time now.. I doubt Intel will retake it..  It seems that Intel is beginning to focus on the professional/business market.

BTW this was a comparison between the 4800+ and the 840EE..

Four applications ran in tandem on both platforms over a period of 14 days. In this case Intel's top model - the Pentium 840 EE - easily outperformed its rival from AMD. The double-core CPU from Intel achieved this result primarily through Hyperthreading - the division of the two physical processors into four virtual CPU units. We knew this to be the case because when the HT function was deactivated, the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ came out on top.

This last finding is more theoretical in nature as Pentium EE systems are always shipped with activated Hyperthreading. It is not possible to say precisely what performance edge this gives AMD because of the different load distribution.

Things look different when a single application is running on both systems: Now it's the turn of the AMD system to deliver the better performance - a huge 30 percent more over the competition from Intel on average.

Since few games use hyperthreading at this point.. there is a very slight performance increase with the intel.. and since the only game that is dual core at this point is far cry.. and when hyperthreading was turned off.. the 4800 would be faster..

So that leaves the question what is the point to 64bit computing.. The future is leading there.. it is estimated that by 2006 most games will support 64bit and be able to use the dual core features..  It is nessary to have one right now.. No.. it is more for show and bragging rights.. but if you want the fastest performance right now.. that is what you are going to end up with..  The athlon 64 is a good processor line.. along with the fx line. for gaming.  If you are going to be doing encoding then you are going to want an Intel.  Windows xp 64 was kinda of a flop.. and Vista will be the first os to offer full support for 64bit..

if you are interested in gaming and the used of dual core and 64bit.. check this out.. http://www.tomshardware.com/business/20050708/index.html

Here is a set of benchmarks put out today.. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1854785,00.asp

take a look that that if you have questions about the gaming performance of the athlon and the intel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

everbody seems to be forgeting that the amd64s have at [glow=red,2,300]least[/glow] twice the front side bus

this makes them able to bring up programs and windows much faster than an intel

it really has nothing to do with the 64bit architure at all

I know this is difficult to understand but trust me on this one

64bit CPU advertised out there by Intel and AMD DO NOT HAVE !!! a 64bit architecture all they have is a 64bit DATA bus

thats all the 64bit architecture is not out guys.

Yeah its better then 32Bit processors but they are not on 64bit architecture

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is difficult to understand but trust me on this one

64bit CPU advertised out there by Intel and AMD DO NOT HAVE !!! a 64bit architecture all they have is a 64bit DATA bus

thats all the 64bit architecture is not out guys.

Yeah its better then 32Bit processors but they are not on 64bit architecture

maybe you weren't reading it in a sober state of mind

but i just said it didn't fucking matter :cussing:

Link to post
Share on other sites

amd 64 is just memory controler a 486 had 64 bit memory bus

but amd64 is half 64 and half 32bit so it can exucute symtaniusly i have owned intel and amd i love my amd, cause it is always faster and most benchmarks can prove that

tomshardware is anti amd

gotta have it to know

but i dont think i will ever go intel agin, because there sluggish

where talking about desktop processers here

amd64 is cisc and itanium is risc so there both officaly 64bit archatechers

theres no such thing as 64 or 32bit archtecher anyway

theres cores wich is the archtecher thats just mmx simd instructions memory controller that make up any archtecher, but theres no bits to it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...