AMD and Intel comparison

[sarb]

so what exactly are the main point differences between an AMD and Intel cpus?

what are each better at?

and what is the AMD equivalent to an intel 3.2ghz processor.

[i made you]

Re: AMD and Intel comparison

There's a lot of differences since there are different kinds of AMD and Intel cpus. Google.

[lonegunm4n]

Re: AMD and Intel comparison

roughly, that's what the PR numbers are for. Very very roughly:

the numbers for the AMD processor are called P.R. numbers. You'll see these in the form of 4 digits followed by a plus sign. The first two numbers roughly indicate it's performance comparison to Intel. So,

An AMD 3200+ is roughly the equal of an Intel 3.2Ghz
4000+ = Intel 4.0GHz
3500+ = Intel 3.5Ghz

Now remember, this is ROUGHLY how to indicate performance between the two.

Intel processors seem to be better at business related tasks (Maya, Microsoft Office, Photoshop, etc.), while AMD seems to be better at games.

[LoD]

Re: AMD and Intel comparison

so what exactly are the main point differences between an AMD and Intel cpus?

what are each better at?

and what is the AMD equivalent to an intel 3.2ghz processor.

Intel's Pentium 4 netburst architecture does less work over more clock cycles. AMd does more work in less clocks. But Intel's new architecture should put it on par or better than AMD, and that is already out in laptops and should reach desktops this summer.

Check this thread, read my posts.

http://www.totalbf2.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59276

[sarb]

Re: AMD and Intel comparison

ok, i see.

well, i do a combination of both gaming and applications (office, photoshop).

i think intel is a-ok for me then.

[imported_Wreck]

Re: AMD and Intel comparison

ok, i see.

well, i do a combination of both gaming and applications (office, photoshop).

i think intel is a-ok for me then.

A dual core AMD would be better.

[i made you]

Re: AMD and Intel comparison

roughly, that's what the PR numbers are for. Very very roughly:

the numbers for the AMD processor are called P.R. numbers. You'll see these in the form of 4 digits followed by a plus sign. The first two numbers roughly indicate it's performance comparison to Intel. So,

An AMD 3200+ is roughly the equal of an Intel 3.2Ghz
4000+ = Intel 4.0GHz
3500+ = Intel 3.5Ghz

Now remember, this is ROUGHLY how to indicate performance between the two.

Intel processors seem to be better at business related tasks (Maya, Microsoft Office, Photoshop, etc.), while AMD seems to be better at games.

You forgot that AMD is cheaper and puts out a lot less power. You don't have to buy a Powerstream for overclocking.

The best processor to buy right now is a 3800+ X2 for $295. The new 2006 cores overclock better than Opterons.

[mafia_boy]

Re: AMD and Intel comparison

Also AMD have the 64bit capabillities, im running a 3200+ and ive ran it along side an intel P4 and the AMD seemed to run alot faster especially in games!

[redrider]

Re: AMD and Intel comparison

Faster ? Based on what, exactly? Didnt do your home work did you.
For a long time people have been trying to say AMD is better than Intel and quite frankly its like trying to say that a Big truck is better than a small car. They always bring up the 3dmark scores to try and prove thier point. A test that is and was set up to test for a very specfic thing - Video.
So if you want to run games with lots of graphics, high end graphics, an AMD will run them, so will the Intel, but the AMD will be running them at a lower temperature ( It has less electronics inside so it makes less heat). The Intel will run them with no noticeable, to most people, difference. With the intel you have to properly prepare to disapate the heat (It has more electronics inside so of course it makes more heat) in order to have it preform at the top level for several (10 to 15) hours. Which means use the best heat sinks and fans and heat transfer jells that you can afford.
What some AMD people dont know is both chips can probably be over clocked to infinity, if you can keep them cool enough ( keep the core temperature in the operating zone). I have, in electronics school, over clocked a pentium to 8 gigahertz using freeze spray (a spray areosol made from freon). When we stopped the freeze spray the computer locked up and we had to unplug it to turn it off. We did the same thing to an AMD chip and it also locked up when freon was removed.
I could go on but It would probably put you to sleep. The short version is this, the AMD is a good chip made specficly for gameing applications, The Intel is a good chip made to do most things well. Its like a small car and a big truck. If you have to go to the store both will get you there but it will be easier in the small car it does better in traffic. Then If you want to haul 2 tons of dirt the small car is useless but the big truck can do that too ( the traffic is still no fun though). The truth is these chips are fairly equal its mainly up to the users preferance which he or she wants to run. . . . . . . . .Red

[Eden]

Re: AMD and Intel comparison

roughly, that's what the PR numbers are for. Very very roughly:

the numbers for the AMD processor are called P.R. numbers. You'll see these in the form of 4 digits followed by a plus sign. The first two numbers roughly indicate it's performance comparison to Intel. So,

An AMD 3200+ is roughly the equal of an Intel 3.2Ghz
4000+ = Intel 4.0GHz
3500+ = Intel 3.5Ghz

Now remember, this is ROUGHLY how to indicate performance between the two.

Intel processors seem to be better at business related tasks (Maya, Microsoft Office, Photoshop, etc.), while AMD seems to be better at games.

Actualy not anymore, although Intell hold a very very slight edge on digital imaging AMD actualy are holding the edge on all other production based application, rendering (in Maya) is faster in AMD's than Intel's for example.

[Eddy01741]

Re: AMD and Intel comparison

HEY GUYS, I"M BACK FROM THE PAST. Anyways, first off, do not trust 3dmark at all, they are intel biased (DON"T ASK WHY, intel just does better, just like how Ati and their X1800 series cards did very well in hte 3dmark05 compared to the 7800series.) Intel is faster for office applications etc., and AMD is better in games, but dual core amd is best of both worlds (not counting price as a world). Anyways, basically, there is no 'inherenetly better' brand for CPUS (yet). For everybody that goes to this forum, u should prob have an AMD (ur gamers right, hardcore gamers), but if u do a lot of business applications, go dual core or go intel. Also, Intel has 64-bit, it's in the Intell 6xx series.

[Eden]

Re: AMD and Intel comparison

Ok Intel had 64-bit, whats wrong with the AMD 64 bit dual core processors? They out preform there Intel rivals in a lot of production software.

The good thing Intel has going for them is they are tough processors, they can take a lot of damage and still run, I know my Intel 3GHz P4 HT can run up to 120 degrees Celsius before my computer shuts down, but give it a few hours to cool down and it will still run ok next time you turn it on.

[lonegunm4n]

Re: AMD and Intel comparison

jeez, I didn't claim to know every, what I posted is just stuff I've picked up from reviews and bench marks.

And like I said many times, roughly.

[imported_goya]

Re: AMD and Intel comparison

enough talk! it all boils down to amd rocks intel sucks. need i say more...

[i made you]

Re: AMD and Intel comparison

Faster ? Based on what, exactly? Didnt do your home work did you.
For a long time people have been trying to say AMD is better than Intel and quite frankly its like trying to say that a Big truck is better than a small car. They always bring up the 3dmark scores to try and prove thier point. A test that is and was set up to test for a very specfic thing - Video.
So if you want to run games with lots of graphics, high end graphics, an AMD will run them, so will the Intel, but the AMD will be running them at a lower temperature ( It has less electronics inside so it makes less heat). The Intel will run them with no noticeable, to most people, difference. With the intel you have to properly prepare to disapate the heat (It has more electronics inside so of course it makes more heat) in order to have it preform at the top level for several (10 to 15) hours. Which means use the best heat sinks and fans and heat transfer jells that you can afford.
What some AMD people dont know is both chips can probably be over clocked to infinity, if you can keep them cool enough ( keep the core temperature in the operating zone). I have, in electronics school, over clocked a pentium to 8 gigahertz using freeze spray (a spray areosol made from freon). When we stopped the freeze spray the computer locked up and we had to unplug it to turn it off. We did the same thing to an AMD chip and it also locked up when freon was removed.
I could go on but It would probably put you to sleep. The short version is this, the AMD is a good chip made specficly for gameing applications, The Intel is a good chip made to do most things well. Its like a small car and a big truck. If you have to go to the store both will get you there but it will be easier in the small car it does better in traffic. Then If you want to haul 2 tons of dirt the small car is useless but the big truck can do that too ( the traffic is still no fun though). The truth is these chips are fairly equal its mainly up to the users preferance which he or she wants to run. . . . . . . . .Red

You don't need to use stupid analogies to compare processors. You're comparing AMD and Intel single core. Don't forget dual core where AMD beats everything no contest. AMD still wins against netburst single core because it runs cooler, costs less, and overclocks better with practical cooling.

Overclocking a processor to "infinity" is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Processors' frequency is limited by physics and you can only cool a processor so much until it has a cold bug.