GrimNecroWizard
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
What's the difference, my friend says AMD "owns" Intel Pentiums, but is there really much of a difference and what are the pros and cons to both?
Thanks
Thanks
Difference between Intel and AMD processors?
- Thread starter GrimNecroWizard
- Start date
Aberforth
CAGiversary!
AFAIK the main difference between the two types of processors is the way they communicate to other devices. Pentiums use a Front Side Bus, FSB, which is a one way connection to the northbridge. AMDs (Athlons) use a hypertransport, htt I think, which acts as a switch so multiple devices can communicate on the bus at the same time.
Also I think on the multi-core processors Intel stacks their dies, and AMD uses one die so the processors are side by side.
BTW, your friend is right for the most part, but so far it looks like the Intel Conroe is going to kick butt, when it comes out.
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2716&p=3
Also I think on the multi-core processors Intel stacks their dies, and AMD uses one die so the processors are side by side.
BTW, your friend is right for the most part, but so far it looks like the Intel Conroe is going to kick butt, when it comes out.
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2716&p=3
MadChedar0
CAGiversary!
If you can afford the Intel processors, go with those. If not, AMD is fine. The AMD architecture is pseduo emulating the interface of an intel chipset with your system.
Intel is in between a product cycle like Aberforth said, and the performance difference will become more apparent then.
People will try to tell you one is far superior than the other, but the current CPU sets (single cores) right now are kinda similar. Both are fine, but if you can spend a little extra on the Intel chipset, do it.
Intel is in between a product cycle like Aberforth said, and the performance difference will become more apparent then.
People will try to tell you one is far superior than the other, but the current CPU sets (single cores) right now are kinda similar. Both are fine, but if you can spend a little extra on the Intel chipset, do it.
guyver2077
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
yea Im a big fan of amd...
It really depends what you use the pc for.
gamin- go for amd
multimedia/encoding- go for intel
You can get amd 64's at a decent price now
It really depends what you use the pc for.
gamin- go for amd
multimedia/encoding- go for intel
You can get amd 64's at a decent price now
Blitz
CAGiversary!
The average everyday PC user will see no difference in either one he/she would use. The only difference that most can tell is the price. Intel is more expensive. Which is why I went with AMD.
Most of the people that pimp their preference do so because their Dad or friend does the same thing. Most have no clue. Not saying everybody is like that though.
Most of the people that pimp their preference do so because their Dad or friend does the same thing. Most have no clue. Not saying everybody is like that though.
I'd go with AMD at the moment because they're better performers and you can OC them to hell without much effort.
But both are releasing new platforms. AMD just released AM2 and Intel should unlease all hell with Conroe though they've made broken promises in the past.
But both are releasing new platforms. AMD just released AM2 and Intel should unlease all hell with Conroe though they've made broken promises in the past.
miyamotofreak
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 23 (96%)
I prefer AMD. The 4800 blows away any Intel processor out of the water and it's way cheap.
Kayden
Banned
Well, an AMD chip running at 2.4Ghz can smoke a P4 clocked at 3.8.
AMD is higher performance, less heat, less power consumption, faster for games and much cheaper.
AMD has been pushing out a lot of "Cadillac" chips recently. They suck juice, cost a lot and put out a ton of heat. In the last matchup I saw, the middle weight AMD X2s beat out everything except for Intels #1 chip- which was still beat by AMDs #2 chip (that costs $400 less).
AMD is higher performance, less heat, less power consumption, faster for games and much cheaper.
AMD has been pushing out a lot of "Cadillac" chips recently. They suck juice, cost a lot and put out a ton of heat. In the last matchup I saw, the middle weight AMD X2s beat out everything except for Intels #1 chip- which was still beat by AMDs #2 chip (that costs $400 less).
CaseyRyback
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 131 (100%)
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/
its supposed to drop to 90 something in July.
its supposed to drop to 90 something in July.
Kayden
Banned
[quote name='CaseyRyback']http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/
its supposed to drop to 90 something in July.[/quote]
its supposed to drop to 90 something in July.[/quote]
As a rule (with very few exceptions), for the last 15 years, Intel processors cost more, are designed by poorly skilled slave labor, and are released to production with numerous bugs including logic computation bugs, interrupt handling bugs, and long-path timing bugs.
I know the last two items from tales from ex-Intel full-time employees and ex-Intel leased employees, as well as from personal experience.
---
Would I still buy a system with an Intel Processor? Maybe a Dell Laptop Hot Deal, or a $100 door-buster B&M sale desktop for Mom. But never again for my own self-built Desktop Gamer Machines.
I know the last two items from tales from ex-Intel full-time employees and ex-Intel leased employees, as well as from personal experience.
---
Would I still buy a system with an Intel Processor? Maybe a Dell Laptop Hot Deal, or a $100 door-buster B&M sale desktop for Mom. But never again for my own self-built Desktop Gamer Machines.
mercilessming
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 30 (100%)
This question gets thousands of answers and flames and Fanboys. Tranditionally AMD gets you the best bang for the buck, but Intel is getting aggressive with it priceing,
I think you should look at how much you want to spend, figure out what video card you want then look at which cpu(fastest)/mobo combo that you can afford and how compatible it is with the video card you want.
If you are going to buying bleeding edge, looks like ATI has jumped in bed with Intel lately and Nvidia has always been great with AMD, this isn't 100% fact just obeservations from what I have read past/present and what seems to be coming.
Right now if you don't have to have the bleeding edge amd 3500+ are 100 dollars, Asrock Dual Sata 2 939 pin is awesome stable board that handle agp and pci-e. Not sure I am sold on the Dual Vid Card tech yet...so I would just get for gameing the best single vid card I can buy because you save alot going with 939 based amd, by the way they are being phased out so cpu upgrade path is cut short.
I think you should look at how much you want to spend, figure out what video card you want then look at which cpu(fastest)/mobo combo that you can afford and how compatible it is with the video card you want.
If you are going to buying bleeding edge, looks like ATI has jumped in bed with Intel lately and Nvidia has always been great with AMD, this isn't 100% fact just obeservations from what I have read past/present and what seems to be coming.
Right now if you don't have to have the bleeding edge amd 3500+ are 100 dollars, Asrock Dual Sata 2 939 pin is awesome stable board that handle agp and pci-e. Not sure I am sold on the Dual Vid Card tech yet...so I would just get for gameing the best single vid card I can buy because you save alot going with 939 based amd, by the way they are being phased out so cpu upgrade path is cut short.
Advice for now? Wait... I was ready to get an AMD based system but I'm stalled my build for at least another month.
Core 2 (Conroe) will smash anything AMD has right now (the Conroe smokes the FX-62 costs way less!) and someone overclocked a a 2.6GHz Conroe to something like 5+ GHz on stock cooling. Yeah, I don't have too many details because I can't remember where I saw (pretty sure it was in the TH forums).
The question on my mind is will AMD roll over and die or do they have a secret weapon? AMD, while still behind Intel, was taken a very large portion of the market from Intel and has become a favorite. Intel's probably tired of getting dirt kick in its face and will completely obliterate AMD with Conroe. But AMD fought hard to get to where it is now. Have they become too cocky or are they just waiting for the right time to reveal something unbeknown to us?
k
But right now, it looks pretty bad for AMD.
Core 2 (Conroe) will smash anything AMD has right now (the Conroe smokes the FX-62 costs way less!) and someone overclocked a a 2.6GHz Conroe to something like 5+ GHz on stock cooling. Yeah, I don't have too many details because I can't remember where I saw (pretty sure it was in the TH forums).
The question on my mind is will AMD roll over and die or do they have a secret weapon? AMD, while still behind Intel, was taken a very large portion of the market from Intel and has become a favorite. Intel's probably tired of getting dirt kick in its face and will completely obliterate AMD with Conroe. But AMD fought hard to get to where it is now. Have they become too cocky or are they just waiting for the right time to reveal something unbeknown to us?
k But right now, it looks pretty bad for AMD.
D4rkN1ght
Banned
u can break 5ghz with simple water coolin on the intel chips...
The amd sport an onboard Memory controller which is why you see better performance... although it will be a tossup when intels Core processors come out, and AMD figures out AM2
have you guys seen this?
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6152945.html
ibm though
The amd sport an onboard Memory controller which is why you see better performance... although it will be a tossup when intels Core processors come out, and AMD figures out AM2
have you guys seen this?
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6152945.html
ibm though
Kayden
Banned
What is doable and what the mass market will support are two totally different things. I'm surprised they've come this far seeing how most people can get by with Word and IE on a 500mhz system.
[quote name='D4rkN1ght']u can break 5ghz with simple water coolin on the intel chips...
The amd sport an onboard Memory controller which is why you see better performance... although it will be a tossup when intels Core processors come out, and AMD figures out AM2
have you guys seen this?
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6152945.html
ibm though[/quote]
[quote name='D4rkN1ght']u can break 5ghz with simple water coolin on the intel chips...
The amd sport an onboard Memory controller which is why you see better performance... although it will be a tossup when intels Core processors come out, and AMD figures out AM2
have you guys seen this?
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6152945.html
ibm though[/quote]
D4rkN1ght
Banned
[quote name='ITDEFX']im suprise these next gen gaming systems can get away with simple fans inside.[/QUOTE]
why? they arent being overclocked i dont believe....
and correct me if i am wrong, but i thought somewhere along the line i heard that the 360's heatsink had a liquid (not water i blieve) copper core was it? to displace heat?
i might be completely wrong, i forget now...
consoles ARE always looking for the better way to cool themselves
why? they arent being overclocked i dont believe....
and correct me if i am wrong, but i thought somewhere along the line i heard that the 360's heatsink had a liquid (not water i blieve) copper core was it? to displace heat?
i might be completely wrong, i forget now...
consoles ARE always looking for the better way to cool themselves
Kayden
Banned
[quote name='ITDEFX']and so is 360 next gen as well or no?
honestly i find nothing special about the 360...maybe because i've been playing high res games on my pc for years. my 6800gt card is still the bomb.
[/quote]
Its a step up, most definitely. Just playing Dynasty Warriors on the 360 and having so many people on the screen at once.... I almost shit myself when I played Kameo and there were literally 100s of enemies on screen at once.
I think the "next gen" really kicked in with Doom 3 and HL2. While the graphical improvements more gradual on the PC, normal (?) mapping (the shiny plastic look) and HDR (the fuzzy light) really began permeating with these two titles.
As for the PSTwo- I wasn't meaning its next gen, but the fact that its overheating should lend support to the fact that these next gen consoles should go for a little more than just a fan for cooling.
honestly i find nothing special about the 360...maybe because i've been playing high res games on my pc for years. my 6800gt card is still the bomb.
[/quote]Its a step up, most definitely. Just playing Dynasty Warriors on the 360 and having so many people on the screen at once.... I almost shit myself when I played Kameo and there were literally 100s of enemies on screen at once.
I think the "next gen" really kicked in with Doom 3 and HL2. While the graphical improvements more gradual on the PC, normal (?) mapping (the shiny plastic look) and HDR (the fuzzy light) really began permeating with these two titles.
As for the PSTwo- I wasn't meaning its next gen, but the fact that its overheating should lend support to the fact that these next gen consoles should go for a little more than just a fan for cooling.
[quote name='Kayden']Its a step up, most definitely. Just playing Dynasty Warriors on the 360 and having so many people on the screen at once.... I almost shit myself when I played Kameo and there were literally 100s of enemies on screen at once.
I think the "next gen" really kicked in with Doom 3 and HL2. While the graphical improvements more gradual on the PC, normal (?) mapping (the shiny plastic look) and HDR (the fuzzy light) really began permeating with these two titles.
As for the PSTwo- I wasn't meaning its next gen, but the fact that its overheating should lend support to the fact that these next gen consoles should go for a little more than just a fan for cooling.[/QUOTE]
yes HL2 was the next gen in gaming for me, for the first time in game characters looked photo realistic to near pre-rendered animations of the past. Doom 3 still had that plastic deadlook on the models
I think the "next gen" really kicked in with Doom 3 and HL2. While the graphical improvements more gradual on the PC, normal (?) mapping (the shiny plastic look) and HDR (the fuzzy light) really began permeating with these two titles.
As for the PSTwo- I wasn't meaning its next gen, but the fact that its overheating should lend support to the fact that these next gen consoles should go for a little more than just a fan for cooling.[/QUOTE]
yes HL2 was the next gen in gaming for me, for the first time in game characters looked photo realistic to near pre-rendered animations of the past. Doom 3 still had that plastic deadlook on the models
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
Kinda off topic but does anyone know when these supposed AMd price drops for their dual cores are gonna happen? I assume they are wating for Core 2 to hit and see, AMd dual cores are still about $100-120 more than intel's. I know they are better, especially for gaming, but being a CAG I'm always on a budget and that extra $100 can go a little ways.
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Kinda off topic but does anyone know when these supposed AMd price drops for their dual cores are gonna happen? I assume they are wating for Core 2 to hit and see, AMd dual cores are still about $100-120 more than intel's. I know they are better, especially for gaming, but being a CAG I'm always on a budget and that extra $100 can go a little ways.[/QUOTE]
It's expected to be around or a bit before Core 2s are officially released (July 24th). But since we don't know how much Core 2s cost, nobody is able to estimate a price yet. Many are saying AMD will slash prices by 50% but will that be enough?
Something doens't adds up. A regular Core 2 beats a $1000+ FX-62. So if they will have to drop the FX-62 to a price point which will have to less than the Core 2's. So at 50% off, the FX-62 will be $500 meaning that the Core 2 will have to cost quite a bit more than $500 for people to consider the FX-62. And this isn't even considering the Core 2 EE.
But it doesn't make sense for Intel to launch a $500+ CPU for the basic edition. And if they do, then AMD will have to reduce prices even more. So, either Intel's numbers were from an upper model or AMD is in trouble.
The wait until July 24th is killing me. I want a new PC so bad but don't want to be stuck with a losing architecture.
It's expected to be around or a bit before Core 2s are officially released (July 24th). But since we don't know how much Core 2s cost, nobody is able to estimate a price yet. Many are saying AMD will slash prices by 50% but will that be enough?
Something doens't adds up. A regular Core 2 beats a $1000+ FX-62. So if they will have to drop the FX-62 to a price point which will have to less than the Core 2's. So at 50% off, the FX-62 will be $500 meaning that the Core 2 will have to cost quite a bit more than $500 for people to consider the FX-62. And this isn't even considering the Core 2 EE.
But it doesn't make sense for Intel to launch a $500+ CPU for the basic edition. And if they do, then AMD will have to reduce prices even more. So, either Intel's numbers were from an upper model or AMD is in trouble.
The wait until July 24th is killing me. I want a new PC so bad but don't want to be stuck with a losing architecture.
D4rkN1ght
Banned
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Kinda off topic but does anyone know when these supposed AMd price drops for their dual cores are gonna happen? I assume they are wating for Core 2 to hit and see, AMd dual cores are still about $100-120 more than intel's. I know they are better, especially for gaming, but being a CAG I'm always on a budget and that extra $100 can go a little ways.[/QUOTE]
july 24th
x2 3800 will go from $303 to 169$
the 4200 939 x2 will drop from 365 to 240
4400 will not change
4800 wil not change
fx60 will not change
the Athlon64 series for 939 will be mostly unchanged, but the 3800 will drop from 290 to 140
the 3500 will drop from 190 to 110
main reason is they are going to be discontinued'
the following 939 chips will stop produdion at the end of the year or into the begining of next year
the single cores:
3000,3200,3700,4000
the dual cores:
4400, 4800 (4800 will end in the 2nd quarter of 07)
the following AM2 chips will be discontinued at hte 1-2 quarter of 07:
3000,3200
these dual core chips will end the end of this year:
4000,4400,4800
just remember tho, the prices set by amd are unit volume
july 24th
x2 3800 will go from $303 to 169$
the 4200 939 x2 will drop from 365 to 240
4400 will not change
4800 wil not change
fx60 will not change
the Athlon64 series for 939 will be mostly unchanged, but the 3800 will drop from 290 to 140
the 3500 will drop from 190 to 110
main reason is they are going to be discontinued'
the following 939 chips will stop produdion at the end of the year or into the begining of next year
the single cores:
3000,3200,3700,4000
the dual cores:
4400, 4800 (4800 will end in the 2nd quarter of 07)
the following AM2 chips will be discontinued at hte 1-2 quarter of 07:
3000,3200
these dual core chips will end the end of this year:
4000,4400,4800
just remember tho, the prices set by amd are unit volume
ing good is a Cadillac if it's on rugged terrain? Yeah it may go x mph but if the road is shit what good does that do?
bread's done