AMD vs. Intel

[SFR-MAINE]

Re: AMD vs. Intel

They are both good processors, personally I prefer the AMD. The processors you are trying to compare are not even out yet, so what good does this do for someone trying to build a rig right now. Second, Intel has been very far behind in there processors up until this point. The problem that plagues Intel chips is not the performance, its that they build to much heat compared to a AMD. Not to mention the fact that they run at a lot faster clock speed. The packet delivery system on a AMD chip is more efficient then that of an Intel. This is why AMDs performed so well over Intels in the past. Add on to this that Intel had to use 533 DDR2 Ram to match or try to match, the performance of the AMD running 400 DDR Ram. Please lets not go back to RAMBUS. Biggest flop Intel ever did. I understand the investment they had in it, but it flopped big time.

At this point in time, processor speed doesn't mean jack, as we are still limited to the FSB of the chip. The CPU is not being taxed during a game, the GPU and the RAM are doing on the real work. So until AMD completes there board that doesn’t require a FSB, don't worry about it. The other reason AMD has been so popular is price range, they have always come in below the cost of the Intels and gave a better "performance for the buck". So next time don't get all heated and start calling people names. I am not sure of the age, but you where surely acting 12 in those early posts.

I have run both AMD and Intel chips, I prefer AMD at this time. I am still running a standard 64 chip right now. I have been waiting to see what was coming out and do some comparisons on chips that are out and not just a prototype. To compare #'s is stupid anyway. The cost of the new duo may be quite a bit more then the AMD, there for this needs to be taken into account in the performance. Is it worth the extra $$$$ to gain that little bit of performance gain that you will never really see?? This $$$ value can run into several hundred $$$, so does that make economical sense? These are all things you must think about when someone is trying to decide which one is best for them. Not just spouting out that so and so is better. There will never be a #1 for long period of time, but don’t you find it amusing that Microsoft sold off stock in Intel to buy stock in AMD?? Just some things to think about next time before you blow up on someone because they don’t share your view.

Jason

For now AMD does not hold the price crown anymore also the core duo's will be very competive with their pricing cheapest costing around 180$

[Flanker]

Re: AMD vs. Intel

A little late to the party, aren't we? Everything you said in your entire post, everyone but the total idiots (and there are some) already knew.

They are both good processors, personally I prefer the AMD. The processors you are trying to compare are not even out yet, so what good does this do for someone trying to build a rig right now. Second, Intel has been very far behind in there processors up until this point. The problem that plagues Intel chips is not the performance, its that they build to much heat compared to a AMD. Not to mention the fact that they run at a lot faster clock speed. The packet delivery system on a AMD chip is more efficient then that of an Intel. This is why AMDs performed so well over Intels in the past. Add on to this that Intel had to use 533 DDR2 Ram to match or try to match, the performance of the AMD running 400 DDR Ram. Please lets not go back to RAMBUS. Biggest flop Intel ever did. I understand the investment they had in it, but it flopped big time.

The processors we are trying to compare are coming out in 3 days. 3 days. Does that register with you? That's like 5 minutes as far as computer timelines go.

You seem to have a total lack of knowledge about the Conroe processor. You bashed Intel, but the only basis for that was the Pentium 4 Netburst architecture. "Heat...run at a lot faster clock speed...packet delivery system...533Mhz DDR2..." All characteristics of the Pentium 4. Let me tell you a couple of things about the Core 2 Duo processor, codenamed Conroe, based on the Core architecture.

Lets start with that you bashed Intel for. Heat was first, so lets go with that. Simple, straight up fact -- Conroe puts out less heat, and runs at a lower TDP than comparable Athlon 64 processors. The E6300 has a TDP of 65W and the A64 4800+ has a TDP of 89W. The E6400 also has a TDP of 65W while the FX-62 has a TDP of 125W. By comparison, the Conroes make the A64s look like some seriously inefficient crap. There are no Athlon 64 processors to compare the E6600 and E6700 to, but their TDP is also 65W. But thats power consumption. Heat is a much simpler topic -- The Conroes simply run cooler than the Athlon 64s.

Lets move of to running at a "much faster clock speed." The Conroe processors come in 5 versions; 1.86Ghz, 2.13Ghz, 2.4Ghz, 2.66Ghz, and 2.93Ghz. Compared to AMD's lowest 1.8Ghz processor and highest 2.8Ghz processor, I'd say that those are almost the exact same clockspeeds. However, the Core architecture is much superior to the K8 one, so the Conroe is about 30% better than the A64, at the same clockspeeds. One word to AMD: Owned.

"Packet delivery system," eh? You forget that the Pentium 4 is not the only Intel chip anymore. The sytem in Conroe makes the Athlon 64 look like a disaster. The new packet delivery system is amazingly efficient, and is hailed by microprocessor architects as amazing.

Finally, the 533Mhz DDR2 RAM. Not much to say here, except that Conroe has a standard of DDR2-800.

At this point in time, processor speed doesn't mean jack, as we are still limited to the FSB of the chip. The CPU is not being taxed during a game, the GPU and the RAM are doing on the real work. So until AMD completes there board that doesn’t require a FSB, don't worry about it. The other reason AMD has been so popular is price range, they have always come in below the cost of the Intels and gave a better "performance for the buck". So next time don't get all heated and start calling people names. I am not sure of the age, but you where surely acting 12 in those early posts.

The FSB bottleneck may work in theory and on paper, but it fails to show up in real-world situations. While its true that the processor is not taxed during a game, that has nothing to do with the FSB.

As for AMD coming in below the cost range...boy have you got some reading to do. I'll say it all over again, just for you. The Conroes are prices MUCH lower than their A64 counterparts. The Core 2 Duo E6300, the weakest Conroe, is priced at $183ea. per 1000 processor shipments, and is comparable to the Athlon 64 X2 4800+. The C2D E6400 is priced at $224ea. per 1000 processors and is comparable to AMD's flagship Athlon 64 FX-62. That kind of a price/performance ratio is just unbeatable by anything AMD can do.

So next time, do a little research. What you've been saying, most of us have known for a LONG LONG time. But Intel's Pentium 4s are history, and in 3 days, the Conroe will be the flagship processor for Intel. Forget everything you associated Intel with because of the Pentium 4, because they've turned it all upside down.

I have run both AMD and Intel chips, I prefer AMD at this time. I am still running a standard 64 chip right now. I have been waiting to see what was coming out and do some comparisons on chips that are out and not just a prototype. To compare #'s is stupid anyway. The cost of the new duo may be quite a bit more then the AMD, there for this needs to be taken into account in the performance. Is it worth the extra $$$$ to gain that little bit of performance gain that you will never really see?? This $$$ value can run into several hundred $$$, so does that make economical sense? These are all things you must think about when someone is trying to decide which one is best for them. Not just spouting out that so and so is better. There will never be a #1 for long period of time, but don’t you find it amusing that Microsoft sold off stock in Intel to buy stock in AMD?? Just some things to think about next time before you blow up on someone because they don’t share your view.

Jason

Like I've said before, you really haven't been reading up on the Conroe. Not only are the processors not "prototypes" but there are final release processors that have been benchmarked. I told you the prices of the processors above, so they are NOT going to be more than the comparable AMD processor's prices. Infact, they're going to be shockingly lower.

Don't even try to tell me what to consider when a person wants to buy a new computer. I've been designing computers for people for a long time, but I've stopped in recent months. I refuse to let people throw their money away on a processor that's going to be completely outmatched by something that's 66% of it's price. That's just pathetic and borderline cruel to that person, wasting their money like that. I'm dedicated to getting the people that I help the best that their money can buy.

Just some things to consider before you go spouting off next time.

P.S. - Microsoft is stupid.

[SFR-MAINE]

Re: AMD vs. Intel

A little late to the party, aren't we? Everything you said in your entire post, everyone but the total idiots (and there are some) already knew.




The processors we are trying to compare are coming out in 3 days. 3 days. Does that register with you? That's like 5 minutes as far as computer timelines go.

You seem to have a total lack of knowledge about the Conroe processor. You bashed Intel, but the only basis for that was the Pentium 4 Netburst architecture. "Heat...run at a lot faster clock speed...packet delivery system...533Mhz DDR2..." All characteristics of the Pentium 4. Let me tell you a couple of things about the Core 2 Duo processor, codenamed Conroe, based on the Core architecture.

Lets start with that you bashed Intel for. Heat was first, so lets go with that. Simple, straight up fact -- Conroe puts out less heat, and runs at a lower TDP than comparable Athlon 64 processors. The E6300 has a TDP of 65W and the A64 4800+ has a TDP of 89W. The E6400 also has a TDP of 65W while the FX-62 has a TDP of 125W. By comparison, the Conroes make the A64s look like some seriously inefficient crap. There are no Athlon 64 processors to compare the E6600 and E6700 to, but their TDP is also 65W. But thats power consumption. Heat is a much simpler topic -- The Conroes simply run cooler than the Athlon 64s.

Lets move of to running at a "much faster clock speed." The Conroe processors come in 5 versions; 1.86Ghz, 2.13Ghz, 2.4Ghz, 2.66Ghz, and 2.93Ghz. Compared to AMD's lowest 1.8Ghz processor and highest 2.8Ghz processor, I'd say that those are almost the exact same clockspeeds. However, the Core architecture is much superior to the K8 one, so the Conroe is about 30% better than the A64, at the same clockspeeds. One word to AMD: Owned.

"Packet delivery system," eh? You forget that the Pentium 4 is not the only Intel chip anymore. The sytem in Conroe makes the Athlon 64 look like a disaster. The new packet delivery system is amazingly efficient, and is hailed by microprocessor architects as amazing.

Finally, the 533Mhz DDR2 RAM. Not much to say here, except that Conroe has a standard of DDR2-800.



The FSB bottleneck may work in theory and on paper, but it fails to show up in real-world situations. While its true that the processor is not taxed during a game, that has nothing to do with the FSB.

As for AMD coming in below the cost range...boy have you got some reading to do. I'll say it all over again, just for you. The Conroes are prices MUCH lower than their A64 counterparts. The Core 2 Duo E6300, the weakest Conroe, is priced at $183ea. per 1000 processor shipments, and is comparable to the Athlon 64 X2 4800+. The C2D E6400 is priced at $224ea. per 1000 processors and is comparable to AMD's flagship Athlon 64 FX-62. That kind of a price/performance ratio is just unbeatable by anything AMD can do.

So next time, do a little research. What you've been saying, most of us have known for a LONG LONG time. But Intel's Pentium 4s are history, and in 3 days, the Conroe will be the flagship processor for Intel. Forget everything you associated Intel with because of the Pentium 4, because they've turned it all upside down.



Like I've said before, you really haven't been reading up on the Conroe. Not only are the processors not "prototypes" but there are final release processors that have been benchmarked. I told you the prices of the processors above, so they are NOT going to be more than the comparable AMD processor's prices. Infact, they're going to be shockingly lower.

Don't even try to tell me what to consider when a person wants to buy a new computer. I've been designing computers for people for a long time, but I've stopped in recent months. I refuse to let people throw their money away on a processor that's going to be completely outmatched by something that's 66% of it's price. That's just pathetic and borderline cruel to that person, wasting their money like that. I'm dedicated to getting the people that I help the best that their money can buy.

Just some things to consider before you go spouting off next time.

P.S. - Microsoft is stupid.

Flanker strikes again!

[Sniper_13]

Re: AMD vs. Intel

lets put it this way.. Intel = more of a Designing, Buisniess and not gaming type chip. AMD = Pure Gaming chip.

[Flanker]

Re: AMD vs. Intel

lets put it this way.. Intel = more of a Designing, Buisniess and not gaming type chip. AMD = Pure Gaming chip.

WROOOOONG.

:wall:

[Sniper_13]

Re: AMD vs. Intel

WROOOOONG.

:wall:

intel is a *****, who made the first 64 bit CPU. oh yeah intel didnt

[Flanker]

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Who gives a flying sh!t dude. You're the perfect example of an AMD fanboy; AMD made 64-bit first, so you freakin sell your soul to it. Freakin Idiot.

No one freakin gives a crap who made the first 64-bit CPU. The Conroe owns it in all aspects, INCLUDING 64-bit environments.

It doesn't matter who invented it first, now that both have it.

Russia put the first manmade satellite into space. Did it keep the US from going all the way to the moon?

Both have it, and Intel's processor owns AMD's.

And you totally ignored your original bullsh!t statement about Intel being business/AMD being gaming. If you're going to make an argument, atleast freakin back it up. Fansh!t.

[DOGGiE52]

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Amd Ftw!

[BOBSONATOR025]

Re: AMD vs. Intel

THIS IS ALL BULLSHIZA!~!@!!!!

WHATEVER will run CRYSIS @ 80 + FPS W1NS!!!!!!!!!!1111

[Sniper_13]

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Who gives a flying sh!t dude. You're the perfect example of an AMD fanboy; AMD made 64-bit first, so you freakin sell your soul to it. Freakin Idiot.

No one freakin gives a crap who made the first 64-bit CPU. The Conroe owns it in all aspects, INCLUDING 64-bit environments.

It doesn't matter who invented it first, now that both have it.

Russia put the first manmade satellite into space. Did it keep the US from going all the way to the moon?

Both have it, and Intel's processor owns AMD's.

And you totally ignored your original bullsh!t statement about Intel being business/AMD being gaming. If you're going to make an argument, atleast freakin back it up. Fansh!t.

if you can give me solid and confirmed proof that it is then ill belive you. put newest intels chip not the xeon, and put the latest AMD chip and see which one wins, guranteed the AMD will win. your intel fanboy im an AMD fan everyones got their own opinions. but when it comes to the facts Intel takes a dump and their crapy crashing peices of crap. and plus most of intels better chips are overpriced they think they win because their celeron is cheaper in price wise. but the quality sucks a**. and plus wouldnt you rather having 64 processes going at the same time or 32

[Eddy01741]

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Ok, major AMD fanboyage here, seriously, flanker pwns all of you here and he backs it up and you still say he's wrong, how much more fanboyage could there be? First off, the best AMD CPU is a FX-62, 2.8ghz dual core, the best Intel Conroe CPU is the X6800 and it's 2.93ghz and dual core, not to mention 65nm, 2x2MB L2 cache and sh*t like that. Now, as basically all benchies have shown, conroe's speed iin ghz compared to AMD dual cores is +20-30%, so add say 20% to the X6800speed, and it's already over 3ghz lol. Face it, AMD wont have anything against intel's conroe till the 65nm CPUs come out and K8L comes out. ANyways, Flanker isn't a intel fanboy, neither am i, we state the facts, and we also both have AMD 3200+ s939 CPUs, just face it, intel will pwn AMD once conroe comes out, no questions asked.

[SFR-MAINE]

Re: AMD vs. Intel

if you can give me solid and confirmed proof that it is then ill belive you. put newest intels chip not the xeon, and put the latest AMD chip and see which one wins, guranteed the AMD will win. your intel fanboy im an AMD fan everyones got their own opinions. but when it comes to the facts Intel takes a dump and their crapy crashing peices of crap. and plus most of intels better chips are overpriced they think they win because their celeron is cheaper in price wise. but the quality sucks a**. and plus wouldnt you rather having 64 processes going at the same time or 32

Someone is in for a very big shock.

[venny]

Re: AMD vs. Intel

this thread has become a flaming session. be nice guys, its a public forums, otherwise it will get :locked:

[Eddy01741]

Re: AMD vs. Intel

Someone is in for a very big shock.

Oh yea they are.

[Flanker]

Re: AMD vs. Intel

if you can give me solid and confirmed proof that it is then ill belive you. put newest intels chip not the xeon, and put the latest AMD chip and see which one wins, guranteed the AMD will win. your intel fanboy im an AMD fan everyones got their own opinions. but when it comes to the facts Intel takes a dump and their crapy crashing peices of crap. and plus most of intels better chips are overpriced they think they win because their celeron is cheaper in price wise. but the quality sucks a**. and plus wouldnt you rather having 64 processes going at the same time or 32

:wall: :wall: :wall: This guy doesn't even know the difference between a 32-bit and 64-bit processor. Why do I do this.

There are much better benchmarks than this, but you guys keep asking to compare the top processors from each company. In reality, the very weak 2.13Ghz Core 2 Duo E6400 that costs $224 is enough to take out the FX-62. But whatever, here you go.

Check this out.

Those tests are run with a Dual X1900XT Crossfire system, so there is no GPU bottlenecking. The score in red shows the higher score of the two. Look at the chart, all the scores of the 2.93Ghz X6800 are in red, meaning the X6800 beat the FX-62 in ALL of the benchmarks. Which is totally understandable, considering it only takes a 2.13Ghz 2MB L2 cache Conroe to beat the FX-62. Guaranteed the AMD will win? Well, I suggest you lick my a$$ on that.

[sarcasm]How fair it is that you call me an Intel fanboy, while you're just a fan, eh?[/sarcasm] You're the fanboy buddy, because you go to the lengths of lieing to yourself to make you believe that AMD is better. I'm a performance fanboy. How do I back that up? I always go for what is better, and I just proved to you that Conroe is better than the Athlon 64. You, on the other hand, are a fanboy, because you probably still aren't going to admit that Intel is better, even after seeing those painfully clear benchmarks. I have nothing but pity and contempt for people like you.

When it comes to the facts? The facts are something you don't know sh!t about. Intel processors are crashing pieces of crap? First of all, I'm talking about the Conroe, which I guarantee you haven't used. Yea, the Pentium 4s are ridiculously inefficient, but crashing? Its the OPERATING SYSTEM that crashes, not the PROCESSOR. Good lord...

I don't know whether to laugh my a$$ off, or cry, at your comment about the processes. I'm not going to try to explain to you the difference between 32- and 64-bit since you probably couldn't understand it, but realize that it is not the number of processes that can be run at the same time. Do yourself a favor and not EVER say that again, save yourself the embarassment. Also, I don't think you realize that both AMD's processors AND Intel's processors are 64-bit processors. And Intel's Conroe beats AMD's A64s in 64-bit environments too. Badly.

You've been pathetically uninformed. I suggest that if the AMD camp is going to send over anyone trying to make a point against Conroe, they should atleast have an inkling of what they're talking about.