AMD And INTEL major diffrence

[microdude431 0]

im going with AMD because its faster...

[Tonice112322004 0]

Recently I got a video about Tom's Hardware where the tested out P4 processors with the AMD ones. This is what I saw,

 

TEST GAME : Quake 3 Arena.

 

The game was started and the heatsink was removed from the processor. After a couple of seconds,

 

AMD got burnt and also screwed up the processor. But gave peak performance until it finally commited suicide.

INTEL machine got switched off.. Possible hanged! Motherboard. Performance went on decreasing until it finally went off to sleep.

 

So, what do you think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I think (and this has been proven) AMD is better then Intel, in everything except for mulitimedia creation, editing, and producing...

 

So, what does this mean, AMD, is a better processor if you do everything, except editing and produceing video, and sound...

 

That your better off sticking with Intel...

[chronogamer28 0]

Again, price for power. AMD's chips you pay a HUGE amount of money towards them, but since Intel mass produces them, they can sell their chips for a much lower price.

[pedro1405241472 0]

Recently I got a video about Tom's Hardware where the tested out P4 processors with the AMD ones. This is what I saw,

 

TEST GAME : Quake 3 Arena.

 

The game was started and the heatsink was removed from the processor. After a couple of seconds,

 

AMD got burnt and also screwed up the processor. But gave peak performance until it finally commited suicide.

INTEL machine got switched off.. Possible hanged! Motherboard. Performance went on decreasing until it finally went off to sleep.

 

So, what do you think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Microsoft's Internet Explorer is taking painful punches from competition it's never before bothered to acknowledge as competition, and now Intel, having abandoned its quest for speed, has Advanced Micro Devices breathing down its neck.

 

 

"The Athlon 64 FX-55 and the Athlon 64 4000+ will take over the top of AMD's performance lineup,"says the IDG News Service. "The Athlon 64 FX product line is for the most demanding PC users and applications, while the Athlon 64 is viewed as a more mainstream chip for the consumer and business desktop market.

 

 

At 2.6 GHz, the 64 FX-55 matches Intel's Pentium 4 Extreme Edition processor, says IDG, going on:

 

 

"Both of these chips represent the highest level of desktop performance available from each company, and each charges a premium for these chips. The Athlon 64 FX-55 costs $827 in quantities of 1000 units. The 3.4-GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition costs $999 in quantities of 1000 units."

 

 

Jonathan Seckler, product manager for the Athlon 64 line, is quoted as saying AMD will be able to boost the Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX processors beyond 2.6 GHzt and stay within the maximum thermal rating of 104 watts, "up from the maximum rating of 89 watts attached to the 3800+ processor".

 

 

Seckler says that'll be part of the company's strategy to increase performance until it's ready to release its first dual-core processors, "which analysts believe will run slower than single-core processors. AMD and Intel both plan to release dual-core chips in 2005," adds the IDG report.

[lhunath 0]

Wow pedro, either you've suddenly upped your grammar and spelling skills and gained an increadible amount of intelligence,or you copy pasted that.

[Darren1405241470 0]

You can find the original here-

http://p2pnet.net/index.php?page=reply&story=2766

Second time someone's guessed that he has copy pasted.

[marijnnn 0]

isn't that video like... really old. i remember tom's hadware doing a thing like that a year ago or so. amd got it fixed as far as i know.as for best option? right now i'd go for the amd 64 as it has the best durability expectations. but the new intel machines, are pretty good too at lower clockspeeds... don't know what to think.

[Tweak37 0]

That was a long time ago. Now amd procs shut down *bottom* well and are beter cooled as intel procs (especcialy the EE ). And btw, amd procs can go till 90°C, and intel procs only till 70°C. Amd has the best architecture for the moment...

[DanThMan 0]

The big difference is the pricing!You'll get so much more "bang for the bucks" with AMD!As for the heat issues, todays CPU's are really pushed to the limit.If it weren't for the built-in overheating protection in todays mobo's,they all would go down in flames! Without proper cooling that is!

[RunerNMage 0]

AMDs aren't that expensive yet, but they will go up more as they are more common, and evntually Intels will be obsolete in any and all gaming computers. I had a barebone system made with a 64-bit AMD 2.7(I believe) and it wasnt that expensive for it. As for pushing to the limit, what do you want? I mean...a pc can be pushed to the limit as with overclocking as long as you know what you are doing, but there isnt much of a point after AMD's 2.5+ and Intels 3.0+ honestly. I mean, ya you get to multi-task a little more, but why do you need to multi-task that much, especially if it is for gaming.

[DanThMan 0]

AMDs aren't that expensive yet, but they will go up more as they are more common, and evntually Intels will be obsolete in any and all gaming computers. I had a barebone system made with a 64-bit AMD 2.7(I believe) and it wasnt that expensive for it. As for pushing to the limit, what do you want? I mean...a pc can be pushed to the limit as with overclocking as long as you know what you are doing, but there isnt much of a point after AMD's 2.5+ and Intels 3.0+ honestly. I mean, ya you get to multi-task a little more, but why do you need to multi-task that much, especially if it is for gaming.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

AMD will continue to give you more for your money. Things will pretty much, stay

the way they are because Intel has so many big manufacturers in their pocket!

Dell for instance, builds only with Pentium and they are pretty big.

As for my expression "pushed to the limit" that's in a factorymade system where

the manufacturer has to think about costs,heat and noise! We will soon have

a totally new architecture on CPU's because the only way to go now, is to make

it smaller.

I think the latest change was the last one, just because it's getting impossible

to shrink it more!

[r3d1405241470 0]

for me the only diff is how you use the hardware, for a hardcore pc maniac without planning to restart his pc for years. i prefer intel for that coz intel is tested to last longer than amd

[gogaoep 0]

Amd sucks. Intel would be a much better choice if you plan to overclock it, because new HT technology is great for doin that. Plus new games such as Half Life 2 requires fast processors as hell(3.2ghz is good to run it on high grahics), but you cant get any amd to be that high yet. AND windows duznt support 64 edition yet so basically they're useless

[marijnnn 0]

well well:1. linux does support 64bit processors, so they aren't useless.2. i have an am 2500+ and hl2 runs very smoothly with good graphs. it's all in your videocard kiddo. half life doesn't require all that much power. besides, in this other topic you said half life does only require half as much power as doom3. i'm wondering what you need to play d3 in your opinion...3. overclockers have always preferred amd because it's easier to overclock.amd rocks but you just don't want to understand that.

[gogaoep 0]

First of all my hl2 runs at max graphics on my p4 3.2 with invidia 6800.even though Linux suports 64 bit processors its kinda useless cause u cant play alot of games on it. and if u wanna overclock p4 nowadays you just hafta go to ur bios and change the speed to w/e speed u like(if u got the new bios).