Forum Rules - Formats - Spotlights  -  Home - Library - New Additions

AMD or Intel?

Constitutional DefenderConstitutional Defender
edited August 2004 in Hardware
If everyone had to choose between a cpu type would you choose an Intel or an AMD chip and why? I have heard that AMD chips are better for gaming and Intel chips are better for business apps but I could be wrong.

Let the opinions come rolling in! :)
«1

Comments

  • RNRN
    I use Intel. But I'm going for AMD once my P4 becomes obsolete.
  • SurfinShell23SurfinShell23
    Intel, like Microsoft, seems to just overule and dominate, but AMD is catching up and improving greatly.

    In thinking about future builds, I'd like to try AMD.
  • IBMWarpsterIBMWarpster
    My 1.62GHz Duron whips my friends 1.8Ghz Pentium 4, I wanna see how itll compare to a 2Ghz Pentium 4.
  • stitchstitch
    I used to only use intels, but that was back in the day of the p1 and p2

    now, all i use is amd, for when i build myself computers, or for family, for friends, or for money.
  • stitchstitch
    IBMWarpster wrote:
    My 1.62GHz Duron whips my friends 1.8Ghz Pentium 4, I wanna see how itll compare to a 2Ghz Pentium 4.

    i would like to put my 2500+ up against a higher p4.
  • SlashSlash
    For all my life I used only Intels and no AMDs.
    I won't rely on AMD's anyway, I've never had AMD.
  • Ka0sKa0s
    AMD.... I always thought they were gay, cause the old ones were slow, and under-performing, but my Duron is FAR better than someone I know's 1.8GHz Celeron.
  • SlashSlash
    IBMWarpster wrote:
    My 1.62GHz Duron whips my friends 1.8Ghz Pentium 4, I wanna see how itll compare to a 2Ghz Pentium 4.
    As for me, I don't think AMD Duron kicks ass to P4, Pentium has 512K of 2nd level cache, and Duron has only 64K (8 times less!)
    Anyway, it can be the same as Celeron, but not as Pentium.
  • QQ
    I used origionally had a K6-2 in the Crapaq, and it was poor, Fish tried to claim it was making IE loose it's cookies!

    Now I have a AMD A64 and it "owns". !! That reminds me, time to get SuSE 9.1 x86-64!

    -Q
  • Ka0sKa0s
    Q wrote:
    I used origionally had a K6-2 in the Crapaq, and it was poor, Fish tried to claim it was making IE loose it's cookies!


    It probably was! Theyre so horribly slow compared to Pentium II's the same speed!
    Q wrote:
    Now I have a AMD A64 and it "owns".

    Yeah AMDs gotten MUCH better over the years.
  • RNRN
    I hope I could tell the quality difference between my old AMD that died and a new one... soon.
  • IanIan
    Hmm, I can't remember anymore about that article I read in the past about overclocking AMD. It said something about why Intel chips were better because of something (maybe someone knows what it is or I'll try to find out later) which is an advantage whereas AMD would easily get broken.

    It was because of that article that I didn't bother with AMD since I thought oh Intel seems to be the better cpu choice.

    But I wouldn't mind using AMD in the future, they are developing with a better business strategy by including more for the consumer than just focusing on businesses. Seems Linux and AMD go hand in hand vs Microsoft and Intel.

    Hey Constitutional Defender, you should add a poll to this thread, then we can see how it's going for Intel vs AMD choice.
  • Ka0sKa0s
    There, I added one.
  • IBMWarpsterIBMWarpster
    AMD will get all the votes.

    I have an old Intel 400

    And the Duron listed above.

    Im pretty OK with having an old Intel because I heard they are better than early AMD's. But I like having my Duron because they're better than Intel.

    Chart:

    AMD
    Intel
    IBM/Cyrix/VIA (IBM used to be good back when "Blue Lightning" was out)

    One thing I find funny is...My 400MHz has more cache than a 1.8GHz Pentium 4.
  • RNRN
    Don't tell me.... the P4 has only 256K Cache.
  • IBMWarpsterIBMWarpster
    It does, my PII 400Mhz has 512K...Im like WTF
  • RNRN
    I think its faster because the P4 has full on die cache, so 256K should be enough? From what I heard, 512K only runs on 1/2 speed while 256K runs on full speed.
  • IBMWarpsterIBMWarpster
    So, thats still sad.
  • DuffDuff
    Yea, my old PIII 550 had 512 KB of L2 cache, now my PIII 866 only has 256 KB.
  • SlashSlash
    Roger wrote:
    Don't tell me.... the P4 has only 256K Cache.
    Most of P4's have 512K cache and very few have 256K.
  • Ka0sKa0s
    Celerons only have 128K total, whereas Durons have 192K. More cache = better.
  • SlashSlash
    On my Celeron there is 32K of 1st level cache and 256K of 2nd level. As far as I know, Durons have 128K of 1st and 64K of 2nd. Totally my Celeron has larger cache than Duron.

    Oh, I forgot that most of Celerons have only 128K of 2nd level cache, totally the same as Durons.
  • Ka0sKa0s
    But a 1.8GHz Celeron takes far longer to complete a SETI@home workunit than a 1.4GHz Duron, and that program basically LIVES in cache.
  • IBMWarpsterIBMWarpster
    wcpuid.JPG
  • RNRN
    Slash, Actually earlier P4s had 256K cache and the newer ones have 512K cache.
  • SlashSlash
    Anyway, I do not like AMD's. Intels forever!
  • Constitutional DefenderConstitutional Defender
    Thanks guys for all the info. Keep them coming! (dance)
  • MentalMadnessMentalMadness
    CACHE.JPG
    Muhuhahaha 0wned!
    512k+16k+16k=544k :P
  • c0oll2icef0oc0oll2icef0o
    i had intel my whole life, probably would use AMD if my mobo supported it
  • BODBOD
    AMD are way better.... so much faster and cheaper...
Sign In or Register to comment.