Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - The Debate (AMD vs Intel), a debate again.

Bossnass · 09-29-2005, 02:54 PM

Processors, as I understand them:

So way back when, it was Intel all the way. It was intel or a clone. Early AMDs were inferior.

Then for the last few years during the early days of P4s (when intel shifted focus to cheaper celerons) AMD processors became the best on the market. AMD changed thier naming system to 'Intel equivalent mhz' because they were getting more effcient processing at lower mhz.

But now Intel hyperthreading trumps (or at very least re-equalizes) non-hyperthreading amds, so that the equivalent naming system isn't accurate anymore.

Intel EM64t equals athlon x64s in price and performance.

AMDs are also still using 400mhz ram, with multiples thereof for the fsb, while many intel systems are using 533 or 667. I'm not certain on the AMD socket, but the intel L2 cache at 2MB seems impressive.

So as it stands right now, as I plan to purchase a new desktop this weekend, all other components held equal, I think an Intel system, a p4 640 (hyperthreading, em64t, 3.2ghz, 2M L2 "755") is better then the equivanlently priced athlon64 3200+ (512K socket 939).

AMD fanboys sound off if you have a sound argument.

(usage note: while I do intend to do some gaming, the system will be used for many purposes, including picture editing and video encoding, C++ and java coding, and autocad drafting)

Also: dual core? Both companies have models available for a bit of an upgrade. The p4 820 is a non-hyperthreading dual core at 2.8ghz, same price as a athlon64x2 at 3800, in which case it seems like you would go with the amd.

09-29-2005, 02:54 PM	#1 (permalink)
Bossnass Détente Location: AWOL in Edmonton	The Debate (AMD vs Intel), a debate again. Processors, as I understand them: So way back when, it was Intel all the way. It was intel or a clone. Early AMDs were inferior. Then for the last few years during the early days of P4s (when intel shifted focus to cheaper celerons) AMD processors became the best on the market. AMD changed thier naming system to 'Intel equivalent mhz' because they were getting more effcient processing at lower mhz. But now Intel hyperthreading trumps (or at very least re-equalizes) non-hyperthreading amds, so that the equivalent naming system isn't accurate anymore. Intel EM64t equals athlon x64s in price and performance. AMDs are also still using 400mhz ram, with multiples thereof for the fsb, while many intel systems are using 533 or 667. I'm not certain on the AMD socket, but the intel L2 cache at 2MB seems impressive. So as it stands right now, as I plan to purchase a new desktop this weekend, all other components held equal, I think an Intel system, a p4 640 (hyperthreading, em64t, 3.2ghz, 2M L2 "755") is better then the equivanlently priced athlon64 3200+ (512K socket 939). AMD fanboys sound off if you have a sound argument. (usage note: while I do intend to do some gaming, the system will be used for many purposes, including picture editing and video encoding, C++ and java coding, and autocad drafting) Also: dual core? Both companies have models available for a bit of an upgrade. The p4 820 is a non-hyperthreading dual core at 2.8ghz, same price as a athlon64x2 at 3800, in which case it seems like you would go with the amd.