Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37

Thread: Amd Vs Intel?

  1. #21

    Default Re: Amd Vs Intel?

    Heres a little help to help you decide

    Intel chips are expensive, I agree but amd are equally expensive too. The cost of the motherboard depends on what model you get. The average model with not alot of features can be very cheap but if youre looking into overclocking or exellent performance you don't really need a expensive delux model of the motherboard. Secondly s939 is amd socket for their processors. While s939 are still using DDR rams(correct me if im wrong) the new socket that intel uses for it core 2 duo and the latest addition core 2 quad is the lga775 socket which uses DDR2 rams. In the past amd was more popular as when it came out with the athalon 64 which means the processor is capable of running 64bit programmes like vista. Old windows xp runs on only 32 bits. But intel's new Pentium D, Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad and some pentium fours all have 64 bit implemented in them. Now if you want to compare speed, normally amd uses a lower clock speed measured in GHz but a higher fsb(Front Side Bus). Intel has a higher clockspeed but lower Ghz using a better multiplyer. For those who don't understand, lets say your computer is 2.6Ghz or 2600mHz. and your cpu multipler is 16 so to find your fsb 2600mHz Divided by 16 = Front Side bus. So intel uses a lower fsb and higher multiplyer and amd uses a higher Fsb and lower multiplyer. So thats a comparison. Next about the multiple core hoo ha. Core 2 Duo stands for 2 physical cores and 4 logical cores. That means its like each "real" core on your computer can act at two cores. So add them up together you get four cores. Same applies to core 2 quad. Im not so sure about amd so i wont comment on that. So you wanna compare amd with intel. Well all i can say is that the core 2 duo really performs better than amd current anthlon64 x 2 and their athlon FX. So i would recommend switching to intel as they use the newer type of rams DDR2 and their new lga775 platform rocks. The price of the core 2 duo isnt that bad. It all boils down to the fact of if you are using it to work or to play games. If you are using it for normal work. I think what i have written is a waste of your time and you should just look out for which one is cheaper. If you are going for games go for the Core 2 Duo with a decent graphic card like x1600 ati or the 7800gtx for nvidea. wah tok so much later you dun understand i die ah

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kembangan
    Posts
    536

    Default Re: Amd Vs Intel?

    Haha..Thanks bro anti-social for taking your time to explain to me.

    Think i will go for the Intel Dual Core (Pentium D) as my budget does not permit me to get the Core2Duo.But will 512mb DDR2 667 ram be enough for a start?

    I actually use the computer for normal words,surfing internet,online games and photoshop.Think Intel Duo Core should be sufficient for me.

  3. #23

    Default Re: Amd Vs Intel?

    I will say go for the Core 2 Duo. The Pentium D series are hot (special cooling needed for more stable performance) and it less energy efficient. The Core 2 Duo series, the E4300 and E6300 are very well priced.

    according to pricelist ,
    Gigabyte 965P-S3 + E4300 = $480
    Gigabyte 965P-S3 + D925 = $400
    *Fuwell pricelist as of 27-Jan-07*

    I would say go for the C2D.

    just my 2cents

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Legion
    Posts
    7,751

    Default Re: Amd Vs Intel?

    Quote Originally Posted by jerry2308 View Post
    Haha..Thanks bro anti-social for taking your time to explain to me.

    Think i will go for the Intel Dual Core (Pentium D) as my budget does not permit me to get the Core2Duo.But will 512mb DDR2 667 ram be enough for a start?

    I actually use the computer for normal words,surfing internet,online games and photoshop.Think Intel Duo Core should be sufficient for me.
    i say, its well worth paying $100+ for a core2duo... don need so fast, the basic e6300 would do... 512mb ram is enough for typical office use, but if you want to touch on graphics, best will be 1GB and above.

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kembangan
    Posts
    536

    Default Re: Amd Vs Intel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluestrike View Post
    I will say go for the Core 2 Duo. The Pentium D series are hot (special cooling needed for more stable performance) and it less energy efficient. The Core 2 Duo series, the E4300 and E6300 are very well priced.

    according to pricelist ,
    Gigabyte 965P-S3 + E4300 = $480
    Gigabyte 965P-S3 + D925 = $400
    *Fuwell pricelist as of 27-Jan-07*

    I would say go for the C2D.

    just my 2cents
    I was actually thinking of the Gigabyte 945GM-S2 + E6300 = $450.And get a 512mb ddr2 667 Ram.
    Was thinking to use the onboard graphic for the time being till i save enough for the graphic card.Do you think i can still use Photoshop and online games smoothly with the on board graphics?

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    270 degree of Singapore
    Posts
    6,741

    Default Re: Amd Vs Intel?

    Quote Originally Posted by jerry2308 View Post
    I was actually thinking of the Gigabyte 945GM-S2 + E6300 = $450.And get a 512mb ddr2 667 Ram.
    Was thinking to use the onboard graphic for the time being till i save enough for the graphic card.Do you think i can still use Photoshop and online games smoothly with the on board graphics?
    Since onboard graphic chip share the 512mbytes memory, it's better to get 1024mbytes DDR2 memory to run smoother, if you planing to upgrade to window Vista and do PS in the future, to run smoothly, you will need 2048mbytes memory.

  7. #27

    Default Re: Amd Vs Intel?

    Since youre using it for normal applications, not "real time". I would say go ahead for the pentium D since its in your budget. But really go for the core 2 if you can afford it ok? It doesn't really matter which cpu you buy, it just depends on what you "need" don't buy something that you dont really need cause it will be a waste of $$. rams speed dont really make a large impact too, unless youre overclocking, you will need high mhz rams as a good headroom for you to overclock. I say get a ram that is within your budget. Okay good luck

  8. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,080

    Default Re: Amd Vs Intel?

    Quote Originally Posted by jerry2308 View Post
    Haha..Thanks bro anti-social for taking your time to explain to me.

    Think i will go for the Intel Dual Core (Pentium D) as my budget does not permit me to get the Core2Duo.But will 512mb DDR2 667 ram be enough for a start?

    I actually use the computer for normal words,surfing internet,online games and photoshop.Think Intel Duo Core should be sufficient for me.
    online gaming n PS?
    i would suggest @ least 2 gig of ram n C2D.if u r a hardcore gamer,get @ least a 6600.@ least dont have to upgrade for the next 2-5 years.(if u r a hardware geek like me,3 years b4 the next upgrade)

    Do you think i can still use Photoshop and online games smoothly with the on board graphics?
    one thing i know for sure,with the current games out in the market,most will need a Vid card with @ least 128 ram..it's been a long time since i played any games with onboard graphics..but i'm quite sure the gameplay wont b smooth.

    if ur current PC still can b used,dont upgrade.save up 1st.there's always a PC related show in March,June n Dec.that's the best time to buy.

    or u can check up some info over here
    Last edited by syc77; 1st February 2007 at 10:36 AM.

  9. #29

    Default Re: Amd Vs Intel?

    Quote Originally Posted by deadpixel View Post
    Nothing beats Intel for software/application compatibility.

    _
    I'd have to disagree... Most incompatibilities are caused by motherboard issues. And in the last years, Intel has had several product recalls. AMD none.

  10. #30

    Default Re: Amd Vs Intel?

    Intel's onboard graphics are horrible. If you want to play any game made after 2000, you should go for an AMD system with an nVidia or ATI board.

    If you can afford it, Core2 Duo. If not, AMD X2. I would not but the Pentium D at all as it's just 2 hot prescott cores on one PCB that both need to share a single FSB.

  11. #31

    Default Re: Amd Vs Intel?

    Quote Originally Posted by deadpixel View Post
    If you run only mainstream, popular, off-the-shelf software, then either CPU will be fine.

    However, if you are thinking of going with AMD and if you have need to run any specialized software that isn't exactly "mass-market", then be sure to verify that it will run on AMD. I know quite a few people who got into problems because of incompatibilities.

    _
    Please list the software. I'd love to know what software won't run on standard x86.

    And since Intel just copied AMD's x86-64 instructions (to the point where they even had the same typos in their whitepapers), would you therefore say that Intel chips are "more stable" than AMD chips under 64-bit?

  12. #32

    Default Re: Amd Vs Intel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    Please list the software. I'd love to know what software won't run on standard x86.

    And since Intel just copied AMD's x86-64 instructions (to the point where they even had the same typos in their whitepapers), would you therefore say that Intel chips are "more stable" than AMD chips under 64-bit?
    Do you remember the time when Microsoft had to release a patch specially for computers with AMD chips? I would think that a patch like this would be enough to make one cautious. As for a more recent non-mass-market mainstream application, Nikon Capture 4 ... we tried, but it wouldn't run on 3 AMD based computers running WinXP (non patched), owned by three different users, so software configuration isn't a likely issue. One could argue that it was a lousy, buggy software to begin with but that isn't the point. The point is that this lousy, buggy software installed and ran, albeit with some hiccups, on Intel based machines.

    I used to work in a software house and we had several test systems running on chips from several different manufactures - as you know, Intel and AMD aren't the only ones making x86 chips. In the beginning, we religiously tested every application/driver written, for compatibility in all machines. In the later years however, when we found more companies preferred to adopt Intel, we, like many other software houses, dropped the extra tests. What we found then was that about 5% of the applications/drivers we created (but did not test with other chips) would hang/crash on systems wth AMD or other chips.

    One thing to consider is this, if compatibility was never an issue, why would the larger chip manufacturing companies make available their own compilers? To optimise the compilaton of the codes so that it would run more efficiently on their machines???

    _

  13. #33

    Default Re: Amd Vs Intel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    I'd have to disagree... Most incompatibilities are caused by motherboard issues. And in the last years, Intel has had several product recalls. AMD none.
    "Many" I would agree but not "Most"

    We had several tests systems using different motherboards and other components that we would swop around. It was costly to keep up with the changes and maintain...another reason why we chose to just test on one system.

    _

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    270 degree of Singapore
    Posts
    6,741

    Default Re: Amd Vs Intel?

    I personally never encounter any program that won't run or cause problem because of AMD chip, unless it is tailored for Intel chip, but that also because of optimisation only.

    This is also the first time I heard of something like this

  15. #35

    Default Re: Amd Vs Intel?

    Quote Originally Posted by deadpixel View Post

    One thing to consider is this, if compatibility was never an issue, why would the larger chip manufacturing companies make available their own compilers? To optimise the compilaton of the codes so that it would run more efficiently on their machines???

    _
    Correct. And in some cases tag the code with specific CPUID strings. Intel was pretty famous for that in it's demos, where they made sure the performance-boosting sectins of code would only load if it detected an Intel CPU. Once the code was decompiled, the flags removed and recompiled, the AMD system ran it faster.

  16. #36

    Default Re: Amd Vs Intel?

    Quote Originally Posted by deadpixel View Post
    "Many" I would agree but not "Most"

    We had several tests systems using different motherboards and other components that we would swop around. It was costly to keep up with the changes and maintain...another reason why we chose to just test on one system.

    _
    The only chipset that ever, ever gave me problems was the Via chipset. *shudder*

  17. #37

    Default Re: Amd Vs Intel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    The only chipset that ever, ever gave me problems was the Via chipset. *shudder*
    Yeah! We used to call it Very Incompatible - Always!

    _

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •