Mark
Lee
|
|
12/5/2001 12:58:33 AM
|
Avg. Rating: 1 by 1 Users
|
Come on people. Let's start a war here!!
|
|
Soceror
.
|
|
12/5/2001 1:05:05 AM
|
Not rated
|
from some standards, i'd say Intel is better, from some point of view, i say AMD is better
dont forget about the less companies, transmeta, motorola,...
|
|
Tom
Cain
|
|
12/5/2001 2:21:28 AM
|
Not rated
|
Intel vs AMD war, that's a suicide for Intel
Okay there are something Intel is better at, and there are still a bit fastter then AMD, (if you compare the P4 2ghz with the amd 1.53ghz). However if you compare prices you go a lot further with AMD. Personally i go with the Athlon anyday.
Another proof AMD is better:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,73923,00.asp
"dont forget about the less companies, transmeta, motorola,..."
nah, they don't matter at all
|
|
Adam
Azarchs
|
|
12/5/2001 6:00:25 PM
|
Not rated
|
Intel came up with a similar transistor recently (in reference to that article you linked to).
I like intel better, mostly because I care about reliability. But I havn't had time to keep up with the competition between them for a several years; at least last I looked (several years ago) AMD was far behind in all regards except price.
|
|
Arcadies
Sabboth
|
|
12/5/2001 6:50:55 PM
|
Not rated
|
I think for the price AMD is better but if you take the same chip speeds the Intel Chips are more stable, generate less heat and allow multip proccessing (some amds now do this). Also on the Open GL stuff Intel rocks. Besides AMD just copies everything that intel does, so I dont have much respect for them as a company even though I use one of their chips)
|
|
J
J
|
|
12/5/2001 6:59:42 PM
|
Not rated
|
actually amd with the new nvidia chip set will kick intel's butt...and besides that...amd has always been better in graphics than intel
|
|
Mark
Lee
|
|
12/5/2001 6:59:49 PM
|
Avg. Rating: 1 by 1 Users
|
The only thing good about AMD is the price. I prefer Intel anyday though.
|
|
Robert
Wlodarczyk
|
|
12/5/2001 8:25:39 PM
|
Not rated
|
I think an interesting look here is looking at both Intel's and AMD's 64 bit processor solutions. Both are starkingly different from each other when I last read on this. This should be a pretty interesting debate that'll be panning out over the next few months to years.
|
|
Johnny
Huynh
|
|
12/5/2001 9:06:08 PM
|
Not rated
|
Besides AMD just copies everything that intel does
If that was true, then athlons would be slower and overpriced... :) I really don't care that athlons produce a lot of heat. They can run up to 90C and still have stability (although I wouldnt recommend it). Place a normal hsf like a cooler master and it'll run at 50C, put on a volcano 6 and itll run at 30C.
So heat is really not an issue. Athlons might be clocked lower, but they perform more efficently per clock cycle, making it much faster clock for clock with a P4. Now place an athlon xp 1900+ (at 1.6Ghz) on a board with DDR ram, a geforce vid card, and winXP, and there will be NO intel based computer that can outperform it. If the p4 believers out there argue that the p4 2.1 Ghz can match this system, then you simply o/c it to an xp 2000+ and now it wins hands down.
Finally, the athlon is so cheap and easy to manipulate. Has anyone seen a p4 without a multiplier lock? In terms of stability and reliabilty from amd, I have an 8 year old (maybe older) 5x86 that can still run while o/c'ed by 30%.
|
|
Peter
Ehat
|
|
12/5/2001 9:43:03 PM
|
Not rated
|
Correct me if I'm wrong but from everything I've read, AMD processors are better for overclocking. My system is overclocked above 1 G and is running great.
|
|
Mark
Lee
|
|
12/5/2001 10:01:42 PM
|
Not rated
|
Ahh, but Windows XP was designed exclusively for Intel chips. With the ties that Microsoft and intel have they could get rid of AMD no problem if they needed to.
|
|
Tom
Cain
|
|
12/5/2001 10:08:50 PM
|
Avg. Rating: 1 by 1 Users
|
I don't understand, how can Windows XP be designed only for Intel chip?
|
|
Adam
Azarchs
|
|
12/5/2001 11:52:33 PM
|
Not rated
|
Intel chips have little quirks that XP could rely on. Just like IBM dos wouldn't run on IBM clones, but MS-DOS would, back in the old days.
Yes, AMD chips are better for overclocking. Intel specificaly designed their chips to be very difficult to overclock. After all, when they design a chip with a higher clock speed, do you really think they build a seperate factory for it? No, they just lower the speed artificialy if you don't want to pay for it. But aside from that... overclocking can lead to glitches. Clock speed is a measure of how fast a gate can switch. If the gate doesn't switch in time for the next clock cycle (which can easily happen if you overclock too much) then you might be stuck with bad data in the gate.
|
|
ditogi
the archer
|
|
12/6/2001 12:13:14 AM
|
Not rated
|
I used to love Intel chips until the marketing department took over the engineering department in terms of when products come out. Lets see here... Intel is more expensive, they release crippled products, and they support predatory compaines that have soso technology(Rambus). Athlons do run a little hotter but I don't really mind. For people talking about being innovative does 3DNOW! ring any bells? The P4 is INCREDIBLY inefficient, but the high clock speed kind of makes up for it. I have a PII and an Athlon, and I have never had any kind of "stability" problems with either in my life. I think that is some sort of b.s. that Intel put out. Check out this link for a good read. It is very very long but you will learn alot from it.
I personally wouldn't be caught buying a P4 when the clearly superiorly engineered AMD chip is available at a cheaper price.
|
|
Mark
Lee
|
|
12/6/2001 12:46:14 AM
|
Not rated
|
Actually, just to stir up the controversy, I heard that the P4 has some major problems (look ). But, if you really want to talk about innovation, look at the itanium. It is a whole topic of study in and of itself. The ability to let the compiler to choose how instructions get run in paralel is potentially really amazing.
|
|
Michael
Fisk
|
|
12/6/2001 1:01:28 AM
|
Not rated
|
Intel is a company that obviously doesn't take its rivals very seriously. The P4 is ramping up in speeds very slowly, while AMD is prepping an aggressive run of Athlon XP processors and gearing for the release of Clawhammer, a processor believed to be twice as fast as the fastest Athlon XPs currently out (not to mention featuring an insanely high bus speed to boot). By the end of next year, Intel will have its P4 up to 2.66 GHz (barring any hasty changes to their roadmap), and the Clawhammer will be out with performance ratings around 3800 (and a core clock speed of nearly 3 GHz). From the future standpoint, Intel should be very wary, considering that they are seeming to spend more and more of their cash on hand (they have about half as much cash as they did a year ago), and are the target of an antitrust lawsuit in Europe regarding bribing OEMs to drop the AMD processor lines (market analysts say that this has happened in the US with Gateway and IBM). Not good.
From the present standpoint, it's almost as bad... the 2.0 GHz P4 loses in most performance tests to an Athlon XP 1600+, and there are three more Athlon chips above that, with another to be released next month. Also, the trend that AMD seems more and more to be the overclocker's chip of choice, which doesn't help Intel much either (since a power user is more likely to upgrade in the near future than a casual PC user). AMD processors run hotter, but for the price savings, you could easily buy yourself an excellent fan to keep that sucker cool, even if you've overclocked it by a good 200 MHz or more. In my opinion, this one's a no-brainer.
|
|
Soceror
.
|
|
12/6/2001 1:06:02 AM
|
Not rated
|
still, lots of people relies on intel cpus
after all, the rumers about AMD fail rate higher than intel is true (obviously)
sure people dont care about that 0.001% but still, some does
and if AMD's so good, why are they still poor? (heck even Nvidia's got more cash)
|
|
Soceror
.
|
|
12/6/2001 1:08:08 AM
|
Not rated
|
transmeta cpu is good for notebooks
motorola cpu is good for cellphones, etc etc
not to mention the other risc CPU (mips..) which powers the game consoles (PS1)
|
|
Mark
Lee
|
|
12/6/2001 1:15:46 AM
|
Not rated
|
PS1 has a MIPS processor? Kick ass, what we learn in school actually is applicable to real life.
|
|
Johnny
Huynh
|
|
12/6/2001 2:26:05 AM
|
Not rated
|
Not only does the ps1 have a mips processor, so does the ps2.... wanna guess the clock rate? 200MHz :) Clock rates are a measure of speed for computer idiots. Thats why intel and the p4 is so popular... I think intel is living off its past success right now... eventually people are gonna see that AMD is producing amazing cpu's at an awesome value and will better performance dispite the 'slow' clock rate.
On the same note, the x86 architecture and most pc's on the planet exist by some sort of fluke.... If it wasn't for marketing and ibm's initial lucky success, apple and motorola would probably be dominating the market. why do I say this? cuz the g4 cube with dual 866MHz processors can kick the crap out of a p4 1.7GHz easily.
|
|