AMD or Intel

[wtiberon]

I have been doing alot of researching in building a new computer and I am currently stuck on which high end CPU I should get. I originally thought of getting AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 but then after some advice thought AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ with its dual core would be better for overall speed since I do alot of multi-tasking. Now...I've been reading and some sites seem to think Intel is the way to go and from what I've seen from pricing sources it is much cheaper than AMD's top of the line.

So which which is outright faster or is it too close to call?

 

[Bartleby]

Sorry, couldn't help myself. Not that it helps but I just spent a shedload of money on a new laptop, P4 was the only option for me.

 

[Zelig]

AMD all the way, the only chips Intel has going right now that I'd consider getting is the Dothan line, which is for laptops.

Where are you getting prices for cpus showing Intel as cheaper?

 

[wtiberon]

Ok lets remember that I'm a bit puter ignorant so what I did was go to http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/Category/category_cpu.asp a site a buddy of mine recommended mainly to check up on whats popular and price comparison.

For the top o the line for AMD is its 64 FX-57 / 2.80GHz for $1149.99

In the next catagory the top o the line for Intel is its 570 / 3.80GHz for $659.99

 

[col]

AMD 64s get you the biggest bang for your buck. They overclock nicely too.

 

[wtiberon]

But what about the higher processor speed it is a full GHz up on AMD. Not only that but I've heard they have less instances of overheating and crashing. I understand that AMD has a greater bus speed and that dual core is really pulling me towards it but I just want to be sure I'm not just buying into some hype and there is a REAL noticable difference or if its just a difference in numbers.

 

[vbraun]

But what about the higher processor speed it is a full GHz up on AMD.

All AMDs are like that. My Athlon 64 3500+ only clocks at 2.2ghz but it's suppose to be as fast as a Pentium 3.5ghz if not faster.

 

[Serutan]

Keep in mind that the AMD processors are optimized for gaming,
and their speed claims are based on running the games for
which their processors are optimized.

For general purpose computing, the Intel processors are
superior.

 

[Zelig]

Keep in mind that the AMD processors are optimized for gaming,
and their speed claims are based on running the games for
which their processors are optimized.

For general purpose computing, the Intel processors are
superior.

Take a look at any benchmarks of an Athlon 64 4000+, FX-55 or FX-57... there are no Pentium equivalent that thouches them in gaming performance, and you'd be hard pressed to find any Pentium processors that are generally faster for general purpose encoding. The advantage the X2 processors have (and will have in the future, with more SMP capable applications) is even bigger.
AMD doesn't make any speed claims... there's nothing to base their "4000+" number against anymore, as Intel has dropped their GHz ratings, and now use their 650, 720, 850 and so on.
IIRC the AMD numbering scheme is based on a comparison against the original Athlon anyway.

I'll grant that Intel chipsets are rock solid though, and if you're building a mission critical machine that isn't meant to do any gaming or overclocking, where stability is a must, then Intel is the way to go. (Or Opterons, but they're quite a lot more expensive than Pentium 4s)

But what about the higher processor speed it is a full GHz up on AMD. Not only that but I've heard they have less instances of overheating and crashing. I understand that AMD has a greater bus speed and that dual core is really pulling me towards it but I just want to be sure I'm not just buying into some hype and there is a REAL noticable difference or if its just a difference in numbers.

New AMD chips run *much* cooler than high performance Intel ones. If you want to verify a real difference, check out benchmarks which show actual times it takes to complete operations and frame rates of games, rather than scores in benchmarking programs. Driverheaven.net, legitreviews, anandtech and xbitlabs are some of my preferred review sites...

 

[ainwood]

Onwe thing I'd suggest is NOT buying the top-of-the-line. Buy a chip about 6-12 months old.

Eg:
[pre]
AMD - Socket 939 - CPU
Athlon 64 3000+, 1.8GHz, Socket 939, Retail pack with fan $283.09 $3 Buy
Athlon 64 3000+, 1.8GHz, Socket 939, Retail pack with fan
(higher price, but in stock now) $283.31 $3 Buy
Athlon 64 3000+, 1.8GHz, Venice Core, Socket 939, Retail pack with fan $296.20 $3 Buy
Athlon 64 3200+, 2.0GHz, Socket 939, Retail pack with fan $362.88 $2 Buy
Athlon 64 3200+, 2.0GHz, Venice Core, Socket 939, Retail pack with fan $370.44 $7 Buy
Athlon 64 3500+, 2.2GHz, Socket 939, Retail pack with fan $495.18 $10 Buy
Athlon 64 3500+, 2.2GHz, Venice Core, Socket 939, Retail pack with fan $495.18 $5 Buy
Athlon 64 3700+, 2.2GHz, San Diego Core, Socket 939, Retail pack with fan $624.94 $4 Buy
Athlon 64 3800+, 2.4GHz, Socket 939, Retail pack with fan $691.76 $4 Buy
Athlon 64 4000+, 2.4GHz, Socket 939, Retail pack with fan $895.95 $24 Buy
Athlon 64 FX-55, 2.6GHz, Socket 939, Retail pack with fan $1,557.34 $44 Buy
Athlon 64 FX-57, 2.8GHz, Socket 939, Retail pack with fan $1,964.45 $28 Buy
Athlon 64 X2 4200+, 2.2GHz, Socket 939, Retail pack with fan Email $1,019.70 $33 Buy
Athlon 64 X2 4200+, 2.2GHz, Socket 939, Retail pack with fan
(higher price, but in stock now) $1,065.68 $33 Buy
Athlon 64 X2 4400+, 2.2GHz, Socket 939, Retail pack with fan $1,112.51 $13 Buy
Athlon 64 X2 4600+, 2.4GHz, Socket 939, Retail pack with fan $1,496.03 $2 Buy
Athlon 64 X2 4800+, 2.4GHz, Socket 939, Retail pack with fan
[/pre]

Don't worry about the prices - they're in $NZ, but the principle is the same. The extra few MHZ you get on a top-of-the-line chip probably isn't worth paying 3x the price to get it, considering that for most applications the real difference in performance won't be overly noticeable (depending on what you're doing). And in 6-12 months, the price tag on those top-of-the-line chips will probably have halved.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

What does Socket 939 mean?

Is there a difference betw the 64, 64 X2, 64 FX... series?

Which would you recommend?

 

[ainwood]

Socket 939 is the fitting on the motherboard that the CPU fits in to. Different CPUs fit in different slots.

Personally, I'd get the 3200+, but that's because I'm cheap. At SimLim you'd get them for about half those prices - look at price vs MHz, and where it starts growing exponentially is the point where you stop.

In terms of the differences between the series - I'm not completely sure - different chip designs, but I'd suggest that in terms of performance etc, some of them probably run cooler than the others, and that's the main difference. Try reading a review somewhere - tomshardware.com? anandtech?

 

[Zelig]

What does Socket 939 mean?

Is there a difference betw the 64, 64 X2, 64 FX... series?

Which would you recommend?

Athlon 64 are the normal chips from 3000+ (now 1.8 GHz Venice) to 4000+ (Now 2.4 GHz San Diego). First cores were Newcastle and Clawhammer, then Winchester, and now Venice, and San Diego for the higher end ones with more cache.

Athlon 64 X2 are dual core chips. These comprise the 4200+ (2.2Ghz) to 4800+ (2.4 GHz). These are all San Diego core.

Athlon FX are the high-end single core gamer chips. The first ones were S940 chips, and took ECC ram and all that jazz. Up to the FX-55 is Clawhammer, and the FX-57 is a San Diego (2.8GHz).

 

[Himalia]

AMD is the path of the light side. While Intel is the path of darkness

I hav a few sytemns here on a network and the AMD ones are always the better sytemns. Its not that Intel is rubbish its just AMD really is that good. I feel the only reason that Intel still do well is beacause some people wont let go of them as they use to near enough be the only choice.

 

[Pentium]

<I believe I don't have to say anything>

 

[Dida]

AMD all the way.
I have two PCs, one is athlon 900 mhz, 5 years old, another P4 2.8 ghz, 1 year old. Although the p4 is 3 times as fast as the athlon, I do not notice any increase in speed whatsoever.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Athlon 64 aea amazing chips. I did my first overclock with my Athlon 64 3000+ from 1.8 Ghz to 2.4 Ghz with no problem in prime 95. I know I could push it further wth more practice, but the power you get is worth the cash.

 

[MarineCorps]

Athlon 64 aea amazing chips. I did my first overclock with my Athlon 64 3000+ from 1.8 Ghz to 2.4 Ghz with no problem in prime 95. I know I could push it further wth more practice, but the power you get is worth the cash.

Was that with the heatsink and fan that came with it?

 

[Zelig]

Was that with the heatsink and fan that came with it?

I got a similar overclock with the stock HS/fan, temps are around 45 at load, I'll be switching to a different heatsink soon though. I don't expect it to help me overclock any higher, but lower temps are always fun.

That was with a "poor" overclocking 0508 Winchester btw, newer 3000+ Venice chips usually do quite a bit better than mine.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

For gaming using the top of the line chips I would go with AMD. Anything midrange and I would go with Intel. Right now Intel has some great chips at the midrange level.

As for overclocking I have to go with Pentium 4s. AMD and overclocking is old news. The old P4s were terrible for overclocking when they first came out because Intel tried to limit overclocking potential. But eventually the mothereboard manufacturers got around it and now you can get much bigger gains then with AMD. You can pick up a P4 660 (3.6ghz) for around $300 and get stable 1ghz gains and with extreme cooling people have clocked at over 6 ghz. But the real news is with the old lowest model P4s that have seen been some 100% overclocks and these were chips that were previously thought to be useless for overclocking.