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

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.

MikeSty · 09-29-2005, 03:12 PM

I've got a P4 3.0 with H/T which is generally outclassed by AMD Athlon XP 3200+ by a hair

I'd really like to see some good posts in this thread from people who have a ton more experience with different processors than I do

Lasereth · 09-29-2005, 03:17 PM

No P4 goes past the FSB that AMD processors are using. They're all still running on the 200 MHz external FSB. If you go into BIOS and check the CPU FSB speed, all new processors on the market are still using 200 MHz, with Intel having a 4x multiplier on their CPUs. Other than that, you're basically correct.

In the past year, processors are now basically impossible to distinguish based on performance. It really is ridiculous. The P4s are now given a model number (640, 840, etc.) that makes it even harder to relate to Athlon 64s. AMD's Athlon 64 dual core and FX series are making it harder to understand the performance relativity against Intel, especially with not one, not two, but THREE sockets introduced in a span of 2-3 years.

The performance difference with processors is not nearly as huge as the performance between videocards, thankfully. The AMD Athlon 64 3200+ is one of the best deals on the market, and is probably just as good as the P4 you mentioned. For what you're doing, I'd go with the P4, however (video, autocad, etc.). I'd never spend a lot on a processor, because in almost all of today's applications (games, programs, multimedia, etc.), the RAM amount and videocard matter waaay more than the CPU. Dual core processors are really powerful, but it's simply overkill for most people, even hardcore gamers.

-Lasereth

Bossnass · 09-29-2005, 06:57 PM

Thanks for that response lasereth.

With either system, I think I'm going with a Radeon X550 (256MB PCI-E). It seems to be affordable and meet my needs for the immediate future.

Also, with either system, I'd be going with a gig of ram. (400mhz with the amd and 533 with the intel). Does the faster ram in the intel make it a preferable system? With the options I've selected, the intel is about 40 $CAN more.

Lasereth · 09-29-2005, 08:31 PM

The videocard you selected is a royal shitcan. Check out my videocard guide at the top of the forum for a better selection.

There's no reason to buy RAM faster than 400 MHz (PC3200), because like I said, no CPU on the market goes past the 200 MHz external FSB.

-Lasereth

Sty · 09-30-2005, 03:33 AM

Well, I would still go for Athlon64 3500+, it being in the perfect price/performance slot. Check the Anand's newest single-core performance measurements:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2429

What seems to my eye there that AMD is leading quite nicely where it matters. I tend to ignore the synthetic benchmarks because it's been proven many times that they have little or no relevance to real life.

So on those non-synthetic benchmarks that P4 leads, it has at most 1-3% speed advantage on similary priced Athlon. On those that Athlon leads, it has usually 5-15%+ lead. Go AMD.

Also, if you want to go dualcore later on AMD, you just update the BIOS. With intel, it's a MB change for you. Also, if you check the new Intel roadmaps, there's another huge phaseout before the next-gen processors come out (meron & co.).

AMD is a no-brainer if you want performance and more security on your already poor investment

Smackre · 09-30-2005, 04:16 AM

I will tell you from experance running autocad on a computer with 3.0ghz HT Proc. 1500Ghz Ram and a Nvidia workstation video card its 100% smoother.

Martian · 09-30-2005, 09:08 AM

If you can't choose, throw darts. Flip a coin. You'll get fans of either one and what neither camp will admit is that the performance difference tends to be a hairsbreadth.

For your applications Intel processors are traditionally put forth as the better choice, but the AMD would serve you fine as well. As lasereth noted, the processor isn't going to have nearly the same effect on overall performance as the RAM/graphics card.

MikeSty · 09-30-2005, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smackre

I will tell you from experance running autocad on a computer with 3.0ghz HT Proc. 1500Ghz Ram and a Nvidia workstation video card its 100% smoother.

I will tell you from experience that there is no 1500gHz ram

Sty · 09-30-2005, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

As lasereth noted, the processor isn't going to have nearly the same effect on overall performance as the RAM/graphics card.

Ah but then we get to this old NVidia vs. ATi fight

In which neither camp will budge from their positions. So let me start: Get and 6800GT NVidia, good price, very good performance (I play may games with it @ 1600x1200, I see no suttering (amd3500+)). The drivers will also give you no headache compared to ATi's.

Suave · 10-01-2005, 09:05 AM

Sty: I have never had driver problems with ATI. I have, however, had many issues with NVidia drivers.

Sty · 10-01-2005, 09:13 AM

Yeah, I've been wondering that.

All the people who don't have problems with NVidia drivers, have problems with ATi drivers and vice versa. It's always like that.

My selection of brands has always been un-biased. Last time 6800gt was clearly superior, before that 9800pro was a no-brainer.

I started with the first 3DFx Voodoo cards so I've got quite a long history. ATi drivers have just always been, for me, inferior than the drivers for the current generation NVidia. NOT on the performance side, but the usability, stability, speed etc... Especially when the ATi .NET drivers came out. The Horror.

Suave · 10-01-2005, 09:52 AM

Haha. Well I think both companies are close enough in driver quality that decisions should be based on the cards themselves rather than the drivers that come with (unless one is considering an SLI/Crossfire setup).

propaganda · 10-01-2005, 10:00 AM

Here are some gaming benchmarks:
http://www.gen-x-pc.com/IntelvsAMD.htm

If a majority is not going to be for gaming, the Intel would probably be your best bet. The issue is the heat will be considerably more of a factor since it is a Prescott core. Also you mention the 2MB of L2 Cache. I don't have any exact quotes or anything but if I remember correctly, the performance impact of a higher L2 Cache is not very noticable. If your looking for an equivalent though, it probably shouldn't be the Athlon 64 3200+ but the 3500+ instead.

Dual-Core would have a miniscule increase in performance in general (Especially in gaming). Some applications do take advantage of Dual-Core already but they are very few and far between.

Sty · 10-02-2005, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suave

Haha. Well I think both companies are close enough in driver quality that decisions should be based on the cards themselves rather than the drivers that come with (unless one is considering an SLI/Crossfire setup).

My point being that when the cards are god damn close in performance, you have to shift your selection criteria to something else. Driver quality is the number 2 on my list. For some people, colorful fan fits the bill.

MikeSty · 10-02-2005, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suave

Haha. Well I think both companies are close enough in driver quality that decisions should be based on the cards themselves rather than the drivers that come with (unless one is considering an SLI/Crossfire setup).

The software is JUST as important as the hardware. Without good software, all the great features of the hardware can not be utilized.

Smackre · 10-02-2005, 09:21 PM

mb not ghz sorry.

skaven · 10-05-2005, 05:31 PM

It should be noted that AMD processors, by their very architecture, have several advantages over Intel ones:

* A64 processors run much cooler than P4's
* em64t is a *licensed copy* of AMD's x86_64 architecture. If nothing else, Microsoft has had 64-bit AMD processors longer than 64-bit Intel processors, so I would bet that Windows x64 will work better on AMD than Intel at this point.
* AMD processors have the memory controller built on-die. That means substantially less latency retrieving stuff from main memory, which is why A64's have so much smaller L2 cache than equivalent Intel processors. The giant 2MB L2 cache on P4's is just a crutch for a fundamentally broken architecture.
* When it comes time to upgrade your system, flash a new bios to your mobo and drop in the latest dual-core Athlon 64 and don't miss a beat. As an added advantage, since the memory controller is on-die, you will probably get to put faster memory in your system too, all without replacing your motherboard. AMD is committed to the socket 939 for years to come. Intel requires you to buy a new motherboard for basically every generation of processor.
* When you *do* finally upgrade to a dual-core, AMD's direct-connect architecture allows for extraordinarily fast communication between the cores, compared to Intel's method of forcing the CPUs to communicate over the (already too slow) front-side-bus.
* Finally, AMD isn't a giant, monopolistic, faceless corporation forcing their will upon the general public. But that doesn't really have any other effect except peace of mind ;-)

So there's my take on it, as probably one of the biggest AMD fanboys on this board (I actually work at AMD's Austin microprocessor design center).

Bossnass · 10-11-2005, 01:29 PM

I pondered for an extra week, then on friday afternoon I discovered a sale. Ended up with a nforce board, athlon 64 3500+, and a 6600 GT.

Right price at the right time. So far I like it, but it has been unstable running windows xp pro 64.

skaven · 10-11-2005, 05:34 PM

I had instability problems with my system after I got a 6600GT. It seems that the construction quality of a lot of 6600GT-based boards is severely lacking. If you can, try swapping out the video card and/or the power supply.

Bossnass · 10-11-2005, 06:08 PM

hrm. It is a MSI, same as my mobo. I had thought that MSI was a 'good name', but I suppose everyone makes lemons.

I should be able to exchange it straight across for a Gigabyte or a Asus, or I could upgrade to a BFG or XFX. I imagine they'd let me exchange it for an aVGA too, which was the cheapest option. Brandwise, any recommendations?

Sty · 10-11-2005, 07:32 PM

Well, first I would do is run normal XP 32bit. The 64bit version, IMO, is not production quality.

Bossnass · 10-15-2005, 11:06 PM

I gave up on 64 bit and installed media center 2005. So far so good, except for the damn nvidia firewall with the nforce board. Everything runs great as long as it is disabled.

So far my most complex CAD drawing hasn't made the new system hesitate when I re-render. Performs better then I expected running HL2. I kinda wish I would I threw down for a 6800 or 7800, but the 6600GT is doing fine. For now. Also, A divx-dvd conversion took a little longer then I expected.

I am dissapointed in the sound-suppressing capabilities of the Antec sonota II. Still humming away. I don't have a fair comparison for noise (my old dell laptop and an old single fan emachine that my wife bought 5 years ago around the time we met).

Either way, to stay a little bit relavent to the thread, I'm pretty happy with the AMD, although I think I would be happy with the intel as well. I decided based on a deal that presented itself; if I was going higher end I think I would have gone intel. As it stands now, I'm content with the potential of my nforce4 ultra mobo.

asudevil83 · 10-16-2005, 05:13 PM

i'll chime in with my 2 cents:

i'm thinking one of the s939 Opterons are basically going to be the HUGEST steal out there. the Opteron 144 in particular is a beast, especially at overclocking.

i've been doing some research and stuff and found some pretty good info. it specs out at 1.8Ghz and 1mb L2 cache and is priced around a Athlon 64 3000+ at around $160. and and overclockers have been maxing it out in the 3.0Ghz range. basically, its a FX55-57 for a fraction of the cost.

http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=40685

http://eclipseoc.com/index.php?id=3,25,0,0,1,0

pokethebody · 10-17-2005, 12:14 AM

ok i have a subscription to pc world and on a class 5 bench mark intel got a 100 and amd got 130. i reconmend amd's AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor the best they have at 500 bucks they say its one and a haff times beter then p4

Sty · 10-19-2005, 10:28 PM

I just had to butt in once more, Intel just released their new dual-core Xeons 'Paxville' and gamepc has a review out of them. They compare it to the new dual-core Opterons of course. It's a slaughter, see yourself:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...axville&page=1

Quote:

The Final Word
Intel’s “Paxville” Dual Core Xeon processors can provide a much needed performance boost in applications which are designed to take advantage of a lot of processors and run a lot of simultaneous threads. Namely, server and high-end workstation class applications. In applications which can fully make use of its abilities, these new Xeon processors can push some solid performance numbers and crunch through code fairly fast. The amount of processing power with two of these Xeons is pretty impressive; however, all this processing power does come at a cost.

Intel’s new dual-core Xeon consumes the most power of any processors we’ve seen to date, and also runs exceedingly hot, both negative qualities for a processor which is designed for the server space. In addition, the chip is also not compatible with older Socket-604 platforms, meaning you will have to drop an additional $400-$500 on a new dual-core Xeon compatible platform, which will be a painful purchase if you’ve already got a Socket-604 Xeon system up and running today, and want to upgrade to dual-core processor. In addition, as of today, there are no motherboards on the market available to purchase which will support these new processors, which certainly will put a damper on any prospective buyers.

The one platform we did have the chance to test with, Asus’s PVL-D, was certainly up to the quality and stability levels we would expect from a server-class Xeon platform. The board provides a lot of memory capacity and plenty of high-speed I/O options, and certainly is a compliment to Intel’s new dual-core Xeon design. This board is expected to star shipping in the next month in SCSI and non-SCSI variants. From all we’ve seen, Asus will likely be the first on the market with a Paxville ready solution; other manufacturers may trail by a few weeks. It’s hard to get really excited about a server motherboard, but it does its job quite well and we have no qualms with it.

Unfortunately, even a solid platform can’t help Intel’s performance numbers, as their new dual-core chips (while powerful in their own right) simply are bested across the board by AMD’s dual-core Opteron processors. Even worse, the Opterons typically perform much better while running at slower clock speeds and only having half the amount of on-die L2 cache to utilize. AMD’s chips also consume far less power and run quite a bit cooler, giving AMD an edge on nearly all fronts. AMD’s top of the line dual-core Opterons are quite a bit more expensive compared to the top of the line 2.8 GHz Dual Core Xeon (which will sell for ~$1,000 per CPU), putting it roughly on par with AMD’s Opteron 270 (2.0 GHz) processor. Even comparing the Opteron 270 to the Paxville Xeon 2.8 GHz, we still would opt for an AMD based solution.

While the chips themselves can push some impressive numbers in the right environments, we are seeing more “collateral damage” than we’re used to seeing from a new Intel product launch. To us, it looks like Intel pushed out their dual-core product in order to quell the movement towards AMD dual-core products. Unfortunately, a chip like “Paxville” isn’t enough to do it. Intel certainly has some tricks left in their bag, with codenames like Sossaman, Bensley, and Dempsey. Let’s hope they can get these out of the labs and on to store shelves sooner rather than later.

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.

09-29-2005, 03:17 PM	#3 (permalink)
Lasereth Knight of the Old Republic Location: Winston-Salem, NC	No P4 goes past the FSB that AMD processors are using. They're all still running on the 200 MHz external FSB. If you go into BIOS and check the CPU FSB speed, all new processors on the market are still using 200 MHz, with Intel having a 4x multiplier on their CPUs. Other than that, you're basically correct. In the past year, processors are now basically impossible to distinguish based on performance. It really is ridiculous. The P4s are now given a model number (640, 840, etc.) that makes it even harder to relate to Athlon 64s. AMD's Athlon 64 dual core and FX series are making it harder to understand the performance relativity against Intel, especially with not one, not two, but THREE sockets introduced in a span of 2-3 years. The performance difference with processors is not nearly as huge as the performance between videocards, thankfully. The AMD Athlon 64 3200+ is one of the best deals on the market, and is probably just as good as the P4 you mentioned. For what you're doing, I'd go with the P4, however (video, autocad, etc.). I'd never spend a lot on a processor, because in almost all of today's applications (games, programs, multimedia, etc.), the RAM amount and videocard matter waaay more than the CPU. Dual core processors are really powerful, but it's simply overkill for most people, even hardcore gamers. -Lasereth __________________ "A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

09-29-2005, 08:31 PM	#5 (permalink)
Lasereth Knight of the Old Republic Location: Winston-Salem, NC	The videocard you selected is a royal shitcan. Check out my videocard guide at the top of the forum for a better selection. There's no reason to buy RAM faster than 400 MHz (PC3200), because like I said, no CPU on the market goes past the 200 MHz external FSB. -Lasereth __________________ "A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

09-30-2005, 03:33 AM	#6 (permalink)
Sty Patron Administrator Location: Tôkyô, Japan	Well, I would still go for Athlon64 3500+, it being in the perfect price/performance slot. Check the Anand's newest single-core performance measurements: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2429 What seems to my eye there that AMD is leading quite nicely where it matters. I tend to ignore the synthetic benchmarks because it's been proven many times that they have little or no relevance to real life. So on those non-synthetic benchmarks that P4 leads, it has at most 1-3% speed advantage on similary priced Athlon. On those that Athlon leads, it has usually 5-15%+ lead. Go AMD. Also, if you want to go dualcore later on AMD, you just update the BIOS. With intel, it's a MB change for you. Also, if you check the new Intel roadmaps, there's another huge phaseout before the next-gen processors come out (meron & co.). AMD is a no-brainer if you want performance and more security on your already poor investment __________________ br, Sty I route, therefore you exist

09-30-2005, 04:16 AM	#7 (permalink)
Smackre Addict	I will tell you from experance running autocad on a computer with 3.0ghz HT Proc. 1500Ghz Ram and a Nvidia workstation video card its 100% smoother. __________________ Intel® Pentium® M Processor 730 (1.60 GHz/2MB Cache/533MHz FSB) 17 inch UltraSharp™ Wide Screen XGA+ Display 1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz 2 Dimm 256MB NVIDA® GeForce™ Go 6800

09-29-2005, 03:12 PM	#2 (permalink)
MikeSty The Computer Kid :D Location: 127.0.0.1	I've got a P4 3.0 with H/T which is generally outclassed by AMD Athlon XP 3200+ by a hair I'd really like to see some good posts in this thread from people who have a ton more experience with different processors than I do

09-29-2005, 06:57 PM	#4 (permalink)
Bossnass Détente Location: AWOL in Edmonton	Thanks for that response lasereth. With either system, I think I'm going with a Radeon X550 (256MB PCI-E). It seems to be affordable and meet my needs for the immediate future. Also, with either system, I'd be going with a gig of ram. (400mhz with the amd and 533 with the intel). Does the faster ram in the intel make it a preferable system? With the options I've selected, the intel is about 40 $CAN more.

09-30-2005, 09:08 AM	#8 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	If you can't choose, throw darts. Flip a coin. You'll get fans of either one and what neither camp will admit is that the performance difference tends to be a hairsbreadth. For your applications Intel processors are traditionally put forth as the better choice, but the AMD would serve you fine as well. As lasereth noted, the processor isn't going to have nearly the same effect on overall performance as the RAM/graphics card. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

10-01-2005, 09:05 AM	#11 (permalink)
Suave Twitterpated Location: My own little world (also Canada)	Sty: I have never had driver problems with ATI. I have, however, had many issues with NVidia drivers. __________________ "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

10-01-2005, 09:13 AM	#12 (permalink)
Sty Patron Administrator Location: Tôkyô, Japan	Yeah, I've been wondering that. All the people who don't have problems with NVidia drivers, have problems with ATi drivers and vice versa. It's always like that. My selection of brands has always been un-biased. Last time 6800gt was clearly superior, before that 9800pro was a no-brainer. I started with the first 3DFx Voodoo cards so I've got quite a long history. ATi drivers have just always been, for me, inferior than the drivers for the current generation NVidia. NOT on the performance side, but the usability, stability, speed etc... Especially when the ATi .NET drivers came out. The Horror. __________________ br, Sty I route, therefore you exist

10-01-2005, 09:52 AM	#13 (permalink)
Suave Twitterpated Location: My own little world (also Canada)	Haha. Well I think both companies are close enough in driver quality that decisions should be based on the cards themselves rather than the drivers that come with (unless one is considering an SLI/Crossfire setup). __________________ "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

10-01-2005, 10:00 AM	#14 (permalink)
propaganda Psycho	Here are some gaming benchmarks: http://www.gen-x-pc.com/IntelvsAMD.htm If a majority is not going to be for gaming, the Intel would probably be your best bet. The issue is the heat will be considerably more of a factor since it is a Prescott core. Also you mention the 2MB of L2 Cache. I don't have any exact quotes or anything but if I remember correctly, the performance impact of a higher L2 Cache is not very noticable. If your looking for an equivalent though, it probably shouldn't be the Athlon 64 3200+ but the 3500+ instead. Dual-Core would have a miniscule increase in performance in general (Especially in gaming). Some applications do take advantage of Dual-Core already but they are very few and far between.

10-02-2005, 09:21 PM	#17 (permalink)
Smackre Addict	mb not ghz sorry. __________________ Intel® Pentium® M Processor 730 (1.60 GHz/2MB Cache/533MHz FSB) 17 inch UltraSharp™ Wide Screen XGA+ Display 1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz 2 Dimm 256MB NVIDA® GeForce™ Go 6800

10-05-2005, 05:31 PM	#18 (permalink)
skaven Insane Location: Austin, TX	It should be noted that AMD processors, by their very architecture, have several advantages over Intel ones: * A64 processors run much cooler than P4's * em64t is a licensed copy of AMD's x86_64 architecture. If nothing else, Microsoft has had 64-bit AMD processors longer than 64-bit Intel processors, so I would bet that Windows x64 will work better on AMD than Intel at this point. * AMD processors have the memory controller built on-die. That means substantially less latency retrieving stuff from main memory, which is why A64's have so much smaller L2 cache than equivalent Intel processors. The giant 2MB L2 cache on P4's is just a crutch for a fundamentally broken architecture. * When it comes time to upgrade your system, flash a new bios to your mobo and drop in the latest dual-core Athlon 64 and don't miss a beat. As an added advantage, since the memory controller is on-die, you will probably get to put faster memory in your system too, all without replacing your motherboard. AMD is committed to the socket 939 for years to come. Intel requires you to buy a new motherboard for basically every generation of processor. * When you do finally upgrade to a dual-core, AMD's direct-connect architecture allows for extraordinarily fast communication between the cores, compared to Intel's method of forcing the CPUs to communicate over the (already too slow) front-side-bus. * Finally, AMD isn't a giant, monopolistic, faceless corporation forcing their will upon the general public. But that doesn't really have any other effect except peace of mind ;-) So there's my take on it, as probably one of the biggest AMD fanboys on this board (I actually work at AMD's Austin microprocessor design center).

10-11-2005, 01:29 PM	#19 (permalink)
Bossnass Détente Location: AWOL in Edmonton	I pondered for an extra week, then on friday afternoon I discovered a sale. Ended up with a nforce board, athlon 64 3500+, and a 6600 GT. Right price at the right time. So far I like it, but it has been unstable running windows xp pro 64.

10-11-2005, 05:34 PM	#20 (permalink)
skaven Insane Location: Austin, TX	I had instability problems with my system after I got a 6600GT. It seems that the construction quality of a lot of 6600GT-based boards is severely lacking. If you can, try swapping out the video card and/or the power supply.

10-11-2005, 06:08 PM	#21 (permalink)
Bossnass Détente Location: AWOL in Edmonton	hrm. It is a MSI, same as my mobo. I had thought that MSI was a 'good name', but I suppose everyone makes lemons. I should be able to exchange it straight across for a Gigabyte or a Asus, or I could upgrade to a BFG or XFX. I imagine they'd let me exchange it for an aVGA too, which was the cheapest option. Brandwise, any recommendations?

10-11-2005, 07:32 PM	#22 (permalink)
Sty Patron Administrator Location: Tôkyô, Japan	Well, first I would do is run normal XP 32bit. The 64bit version, IMO, is not production quality. __________________ br, Sty I route, therefore you exist

10-15-2005, 11:06 PM	#23 (permalink)
Bossnass Détente Location: AWOL in Edmonton	I gave up on 64 bit and installed media center 2005. So far so good, except for the damn nvidia firewall with the nforce board. Everything runs great as long as it is disabled. So far my most complex CAD drawing hasn't made the new system hesitate when I re-render. Performs better then I expected running HL2. I kinda wish I would I threw down for a 6800 or 7800, but the 6600GT is doing fine. For now. Also, A divx-dvd conversion took a little longer then I expected. I am dissapointed in the sound-suppressing capabilities of the Antec sonota II. Still humming away. I don't have a fair comparison for noise (my old dell laptop and an old single fan emachine that my wife bought 5 years ago around the time we met). Either way, to stay a little bit relavent to the thread, I'm pretty happy with the AMD, although I think I would be happy with the intel as well. I decided based on a deal that presented itself; if I was going higher end I think I would have gone intel. As it stands now, I'm content with the potential of my nforce4 ultra mobo.

10-16-2005, 05:13 PM	#24 (permalink)
asudevil83 Psycho Location: Scottsdale, AZ	i'll chime in with my 2 cents: i'm thinking one of the s939 Opterons are basically going to be the HUGEST steal out there. the Opteron 144 in particular is a beast, especially at overclocking. i've been doing some research and stuff and found some pretty good info. it specs out at 1.8Ghz and 1mb L2 cache and is priced around a Athlon 64 3000+ at around $160. and and overclockers have been maxing it out in the 3.0Ghz range. basically, its a FX55-57 for a fraction of the cost. http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=40685 http://eclipseoc.com/index.php?id=3,25,0,0,1,0

10-17-2005, 12:14 AM	#25 (permalink)
pokethebody Banned	ok i have a subscription to pc world and on a class 5 bench mark intel got a 100 and amd got 130. i reconmend amd's AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor the best they have at 500 bucks they say its one and a haff times beter then p4 Last edited by pokethebody; 10-17-2005 at 12:15 AM.. Reason: spelling