Best CPU

[xtremeskiing]

Intel is for people that buy their comps at Walmart / Staples / Busniess Depot . AMD is for people that build their own machines.

 

I built my intel and the only parts that came from america's favorite superstores is the hard drive, network card, printer and sound card (who can resist the circuit city rebates?) and I bet that 4 weeks ago (before it got toasted in a fire and I had to downgrade to save money) it would have wiped the floor with you AMD, even at 3 years old. Now, it will probably just out clock it, and its been seriously downgraded.

[TetsuoShima]

I prefer the one that is fastest! :) They BOTH have their ups and downs, neither is the absolute winner with everything. It all depends on what you use it for, wich one is best for you. It would appear however that with the latest models the gaps are closing.

[matrix232]

It's really not all the cpu,if you have a cheap chipset your sucking.I have a 3.2 p4 / 512k running@ 3.8 on a lanparty 875p chipset.Also how much money are you going to put into it.My friend has amd 64 3200 / a lanparty 250 gb chipset just as good as mine.

The Pentium M @ 2.13 is just as fast in numbers as the AMD or Pentium 4 its all about money.And they make an 855 chipset fot desktops now for people who want to use the Pentium M

[sebs]

i voted intel only cos i have 1 lol but ya amd are the best so ive read they can handle much more stress than an intel , and the cache aint tyed into the cpu like an intell , amds are much more over clockable. lol but i love my intel lol i have a p4 ht 3.6 ghz and like 4gb dual channel 3200 sdram at 400 mhz speed and its well a beast but loud cost me a packet lol like 2k takes the biscuits man but amd are for sure better so i read.

[S0V13T]

I built my intel and the only parts that came from america's favorite superstores is the hard drive' date=' network card, printer and sound card (who can resist the circuit city rebates?) and I bet that 4 weeks ago (before it got toasted in a fire and I had to downgrade to save money) it would have wiped the floor with you AMD, even at 3 years old. Now, it will probably just out clock it, and its been seriously downgraded.[/quote']

 

Well, my home made 3.6Ghz cpu (amd 2600 xp++ 288Mhz * 12.50) / 1.5 gig ram / 780GB HDD RAID Would love to meet you, "Intel", even at 4 months old :P.

 

But in all due respects, I also had a fire at my home (3 years ago. You wll NEVER forget that smell) witch destroyed the majority of my equipment / clothes / personal effects. No smart assed comment, no disrespect on that, just respect, bad memories, and understanding, xtremeskiing. :)

 

matrix232: It's NOT all about money, it's all about patience and cooling. Fools spend money on the top ot the line CPU's, the knowadged SPEND time tweaking the ones a few knotches down the ladder.

 

* (*)Represents the Multiplication symbol (4x4=16) for anyone unfamiliar with the * usage.

[kyran]

we fit amd64 bit for autocad type uses and p4 for other uses

i prefer the p4 because i can get mine to 4 gigs :)

needs a big fridge to run it more then a few minutes tho

i run a p4 3.4 with two gigs of ram and it does everything i need (mostly chatting ) onlt kidding

runs all the games (gotta crap 128 nvidia 5900xt ) and no problems but the designer customers are definate that the 64 bit chips are better :)

kyran

www.martinspcrepair.vze.com

[kyran]

no windows for 64 bit?

microsoft sent me a free FREE copy of 64 bit windowsXP

 

so there is windows for 64 bit :)

 

but it was crap nuffin worked with it so we dumped it. still got the copy tho

think there is a d/l from microsoft on their website too

 

kyran

[asmodeusca]

Hi guys,

 

It's been quite a few years since I've played with computer hardware except for a small computer on my sailboat.

 

Reading your posts I get the feeling most of you think the chips we see in the market is a function of technology. I would be VERY surprised if this is the case.

 

Both Intel and AMD are solely interested in profit. A key marketing concept is product tiering. The idea is to release your R&D assets to maximize profit and/or market share.

 

If Intel is lagging in performance it is likely because they can. There is no good reason to start looking at upgrade your current product until it starts to loosing market share. Then you have to consider how much of an upgrade to make to maxmize profits over the longer term.

 

I'm sure both Intel and AMD R&D are holding back significant technology waiting for the right market timing.

 

A side effect of this is neither of these companies is likely to release comparable technology at the same time. They will constantly one-up each other.

 

From this view, I would be much more inclined to hold Intel stock than AMD. When the time is right (OS, software, memory, motherboards, video, etc) you'll find Intel releasing new leap-frog technology and then milking it for as much as they can get.

 

I see AMD's release of the 64bit chip as premature. I suspect it is an attempt to capture some leading edge (bleeding edge) market share before the big guy arrives.

 

Cheers,

Donald

 

P.s. Intel Market Cap: 153.28 Billion

AMD Market Cap: 5.93 Billion

 

Assuming they contribute similar resources to R&D, Intel's R&D is about 25 times the size of AMD's.

 

[xboxmaster]

I voted AMD.

We have a AMD64 3000+. My pc runs very smooth and stable. I am happy with it.

 

I have also a Duron 850. This one runs also very good and stable.

[daffydk]

Check out the reviews on the new AMD X2 Dual core! Every major reviw site, Anandtech, Toms Hardware, and Even CNET (which intel holds a big stake in) had AMD winning by huge margin over the Intel Extreme Edition dual core.

 

That was impressive tht they could do that with a dual core running at 2.4ghz each core and 1mb cache.

 

 

But one thing it showed that if you want to just do one thing. Single core is sufficient.

[piepie]

I overclocked my Amiga 500 from 16Mhz to 100Mhz by replacing the oscillator. Suck on that!

[Weyoun]

I overclocked my Amiga 500 from 16Mhz to 100Mhz by replacing the oscillator. Suck on that!

LMFAO!

 

 

But seriously, I have overclocked my proc. from 2.0 ghz (AMD 64 3200) to as high as 2.5 ghz, but currently run it at 2.2 since I am on air, not watercooled, and I don't want it to die, plus I have no way of bringing the multiplier above 10X and I don't know of a way to stop from oc'ing my ram without a mem divider, which I don't like. Corsair xms dual channel 1 gb in total on that.

 

I do like my hds though. 2 74 gb raptors in raid 0 for windows. Other massive ones for storage. Super fast! I need a new video card though. Thats my bottleneck for most things anyway, at this point.

[piepie]

Semprons are meant to be very overclockable. It's a bit pointless though as they aren't all that powerful to start with.

I have a Sempron 2200+ 1500MHz which is enough for me.

[Weyoun]

But seriously, I have overclocked my proc. from 2.0 ghz (AMD 64 3200) to as high as 2.5 ghz, but currently run it at 2.2 since I am on air, not watercooled, and I don't want it to die, plus I have no way of bringing the multiplier above 10X and I don't know of a way to stop from oc'ing my ram without a mem divider, which I don't like. Corsair xms dual channel 1 gb in total on that.

 

I do like my hds though. 2 74 gb raptors in raid 0 for windows. Other massive ones for storage. Super fast! I need a new video card though. Thats my bottleneck for most things anyway, at this point.

Sure a 10% overclock is quite normal for recent pc's with aircooling, over 20% is possible with watercooling too. I suppose you have a winchester than eh. What graphics board you've got in there, since you say it is slowing you down? I'll utter a guess: radeon9800?

Yup. Winchester. The other option was to go Newcastle, but I really wanted that socket 939. I hope I will be able to go dual core with this eventually, since that is going to be 939 as well.

Also right on the graphics card, actually. I want to go pci-express on my next one, but don't have the money for now, and when I do, I will probably want to go sli or something, but that can be for later since the boards that handle that can go either way. The video cards that can though are way too much money.

 

(btw. a 80% overclock with an old thoroughbred REALLY isn't possible)

I was suprised when I read that post myself. lol

[NiteShdw]

I have a Winchester 3000+ that I overclock by 35% on air. I have the following system:

 

MSI Neo2 Platinum - sucky! The onboard audio doesn't work, and the front USB ports burned out two USB drives - I'd RMA it but what would I do for 2 weeks?!

AMD Winchester 3000+ 90nm - With a base clock of 1800mhz, I OC with a 265mhz FSB. I drop the RAM multiplier down to 166mhz (from 200mhz) and the HT bus to 4x (instead of 5x). It runs at about 42C while idle and up to about 50C under load.

Corsair XMS 1GB Dual Channel - I just bought this as it was on sale for $65 for each 512. It has heat spreaders. The FSB OC pushes the RAM to 225mhz (or DDR 450).

1 Seagate 200GB ATA-133, 1 Hitachi 250MB SATA - I have heard of the benefits of using RAID, but I haven't put out the $$$ for another 250GB Hitachi

LG 8x DVD+/-R - Does a good job, though my newest 8x discs only burn at 4x, and I can't get it to rip above 8x.

 

I would like to upgrade to the Venice core 3500+, but they are about $230-250 right now, and my OC to 2400Mhz puts me in the 3500+ range.

[NiteShdw]

Check out the reviews on the new AMD X2 Dual core! Every major reviw site, Anandtech, Toms Hardware, and Even CNET (which intel holds a big stake in) had AMD winning by huge margin over the Intel Extreme Edition dual core.

 

That was impressive tht they could do that with a dual core running at 2.4ghz each core and 1mb cache.

 

 

But one thing it showed that if you want to just do one thing. Single core is sufficient.

 

I've read that the AMD dual core is a much better implementation that the Intel dual core. From what I read, Intel basically just slapped two P4 cores together and called it good, while AMD designed the new chip 'from the ground up'.

 

Also, there aren't a lot of programs out there that can take advantage of multiple processors, but as they become more prevelant, I'm sure things will migrate that way (DivX for example only uses a single CPU).

 

As I understand it, the dual core chip is basically the same as have a two socket motherboard, so you still need an OS and programs that are SMP aware.

 

-------

 

I like AMD because it's the best 'bang for the buck'. Intel CPUs are easily twice as expensive as AMD, and the benchmarks have shown the two can both provide good performance.

 

However, I will NOT be buying a dual core chip, they are starting at $1500! Heck, I can buy 8 AMD 64 3000+s for that much!

[Weyoun]

I like AMD because it's the best 'bang for the buck'. Intel CPUs are easily twice as expensive as AMD, and the benchmarks have shown the two can both provide good performance.

 

However, I will NOT be buying a dual core chip, they are starting at $1500! Heck, I can buy 8 AMD 64 3000+s for that much!

 

Actually, here is the pricing for amd dual core chips:

Official AMD pricing per chip, which is in US dollars and for a tray of 1,000 processors is as follows: 4200+, $537; _4400+, $581; _4600+, $803; _and 4800+, $1001.

 

Granted, this is for 1000 procs, but if we are going from newegg, when they come out, I doubt they would double their price for the low end. I would guess starting at 600, 700 max, but that is a far cry from 1500 bucks.

Where did you get your pricing info from?

[TetsuoShima]

...I've read that the AMD dual core is a much better implementation that the Intel dual core. From what I read, Intel basically just slapped two P4 cores together and called it good, while AMD designed the new chip 'from the ground up'...

AMD designed the athlon64 from the start to be dual core, that was one of the reasons they chose to go for hypertransport. Further, the AMD dual core's have a dedicated bridge between the two cores on chip. The Intels don't have this bridge, meaning that if they want to communicate, they have to do this through the fsb, wich is obviously a lot less efficient.

 

As for performance, it is obvious that the AMD's should be faster since in relation to their single core counterparts, their clock speed is a lot higher in comparison to the relation between Intels dual and single core parts.

 

As for pricing, the Intel dual cores might not be as fast as the AMD's, but they will also be a lot cheaper. Now I bet that was the first time you heard of Intel being they cheaper processor. :p

 

In the end, as I've said B4, it all depends on what you want to do with it. For gaming the fx-series still rules, for encoding the new dual cores are quite unbeatable. Divx encoding speeds up by up to 50% and XViD by up to 20% so I guess that means if you get one of these Nite, the next series will be finished at least 20% faster! :)

[melkor41]

AMD!! Intel used to be the best but AMD is the king of procs! Why you say? Because AMDs are so much more powerfull than the poor intel... And intels have such heat problems... Sad I used to swear by Intel...

 

Its the other way around, I still have the scar of the outline of an AMD K7 (the solt slot A) CPU burned into my hand where a fan wasnt exactly flush.

 

If i can get my friend to loan me his old mobo I can post pics where his AMD 2800+ had a cpu fan failure (retail box cpu, so its an AMD fan) it melted the solder points for the cpu heat sensor causing the mobo to not notice the heat buildup.. the cpu kept goin till it melted the socked and fused some contacts and POOF!!! cpu socket plastic on fire and magic smoke escaping the case... had a ribbon cable been near it at the time the chance of a real fire was a posibility.

 

Next time you have the chance to work with an Intel P4 take the fan off the cpu while its running.. it will slow down as much as it can then shut down, its a built in function of the cpu.

 

Intel works on the principle that the cpu should slow down if it gets too hot, this cools the cpu.

 

AMD gets their speed bonuses on the 64 and newer XP series cpus by forgoing the cpu temprature and running all out afterburners. the chip is supposed to cool in the off cycles where the cpu isnt 100%, watch your task manager when your doing normal everyday things.. it will go to 100% for a few sec then back down for a few sec. Start a long video encode or play eq2 for about 12 hours... your cpu never gets the off cycles to cool down and damage starts to occur.

 

Im a technician in a local repair shop in my spare time and about half of the systems that we get in with the problem "running slow, locking up" are spyware/virus.. the rest are AMDs with faulty cpu fans (by faulty, i mean running at 80% or lower speed) this can be caused by dust, cat hair, a bad bearing in the fan, warping of the fan due to excessive heat, etc.

 

For video encoding, a server you dont want to have to think about, or any other serious use of a computer go with an Intel. even if you look at the price of the AMD 64 3000+ vs a 3.0hz HT P4 its not worth worrying about, the lastest frys ad friday had the P4 at 8$ LESS.

 

If you are looking for something just to surf the net, listen to music, casualy play a game, download and watch enterprise, or post on forums.. get an AMD semperon. these can be had for under 80$ with mobo.

 

heck.. dont listen to me.. watch it for yourself...

 

http://www12.tomshardware.com/images/thg_video_1_cpu_cooling.zip

 

 

[Weyoun]

Ok, I will grant you this: If you are fairly stupid and decide to turn off the feature in your bios that shuts down computer at a certain proc. temp.(almost all modern bios's have that feature, enabled by default, I am guessing they shut it down for that test video) then you should probably go with intel, since apparently they will shut themself off... Now, I am not going to say that things can't still go wrong, even if you do everything right. Temp. sensors fail, but I bet whatever is sensing the temp of that intel processor could fail just about as often as a common fan sensor, could be wrong here of course though, seeing as I am not sure what they are using for a sensor.