AMD vs Intel

[calbiterol]

Now, I don't want to start a religious war here or anything, but which one is better, AMD or Intel? Base it on proven fact, not speculation or brand name. If it makes any difference, I am asking because I would like to build my own PC and a small PDA / mp3 player / jack-of-all-trades thingy. For the former I need raw power, because size is not an issue. For the latter, I need something small, with a small power consumption, but still powerful. I would like both to be moderately cheap (under $100 if at all possible for the latter).

 

Anyways, which one?

 

P.S.: I did search for a thread on this, 'cause I thought there had to be one... If I missed it, all due apologies.

[jdurg]

Neither is better. Each of them has strengths and weaknesses. You really can't go wrong with either of 'em. However, the real big and important computers wouldn't touch any of them with a ten foot pole. Then again, those types of computers are a wee bit different than the ones we typically use.

[5614]

For under $100 you're not going to get an amazing chip... you might seriously consider spending a bit more, especially on a part such as the processor.

 

I thought there was a thread, but I can't find it either, oh well.

 

If you're serious about the $100 limit, knowing that you're not going to get top of the range stuff, maybe try looking around 2nd hand places, they normally work just as well (I mean, you're not going to get something that old) and as for AMD or Intel, at that price, either, the cheaper because at the end of the day the real difference occurs when you are comparing top of the range products, when you are using the *real* stuff every little counts, and as jdurg said, at that point they both have strengths/weaknesses anyway.

 

[edit] actually looking around you're not getting something as bad as I thought it would be... but still, I think the above still applies

[Dave]

Well, for under $100, you're going to be able to buy a Celeron, just about. Maybe an entry level P4 if you're lucky. Some of the earlier AMD AthlonXP chips are available for that price, but they're not terribly wonderful. I would also recommend either looking around for second hand options or upping the amount you're prepared to spend.

[5614]

You really do not want a Celeron!!! Unless money is a serious priority that is. And obviously if you're going intel you want a Pentium 4.... processors are really the most expensive part of a computer, and they are the main part too, you really should aim to spend a bit more than $100.

[Klaynos]

For PDA's you'll want to look at people like ARM, but they arn't cheap, not even sure if you can buy them on their own...

[calbiterol]

I should have clarified - $100 for the handheld, not the actual desktop. Absolute max for the handheld would be $150, and thats pushing it. As for the desktop, the price is pretty open-ended, cause it's a ways off on my list of projects to complete.

 

P.S: If it makes any difference, the OS I'm planning to use (at least for the handheld, anyway, and if I like it for the desktop too) is some form or another of Linux.

[1veedo]

Then get an AMD 64 bit!!!

 

Linux can already take advantage of the extra power. I think there's some betta XP thing, but I'd never touch a betta release of M$

 

Trust me, get the 64. In my opinion AMD bassed systems are better. You can probably try looking around on google. The only downfall to the 64 that I've found is that installing flahs is a pain in the ass! I had to read an article for gentoo to get it on ubuntu, and I'm really not sure how I managed it.

 

I've heard that AMDs aren't as good for "multitasking," though...and for some reason AMDs are always prefered for gamming?

 

Quick question: Are they diferent archetectures completely? I know intel uses x86 because my system used to be intel. I'm not sure if AMD's are "x86."

[calbiterol]

Forgive me if this sounds stupid, but... do you mean flash? It not, what's flahs?

[calbiterol]

Anybody know of cheap places to get AMD Athlon 64 processors and compatable chipsets? Help would be great - and I've decided on AMD.

[Dave]

I would consider waiting 1-2 months on that front - they're just startng to bring out the Athlon64 X2 (dual core processors) which promise to be quite good.

[aswokei]

I would consider waiting 1-2 months on that front - they're just startng to bring out the Athlon64 X2 (dual core processors) which promise to be quite good.

 

Yup.. that's what I read on Tom's hardware guide. Even if you decide dual core is a waste of money, their presence will surely reduce the price of other existing processors. I would wait and get a dual core though, depending on how expensive they are.

[calbiterol]

Keep in mind, for the handheld I don't need something with massive amounts of power - I don't want it to be a desktop replacement, I want it to be a kind of super-PDA with the power of a scaled-down computer - I just need something that is decent enough so that I can run non-CPU-heavy games (that would be the heaviest work on the processor).

[radiohead]

I prefer AMD because with Intel, you are just buying the name which is why it is so expensive. IMO, they are both performing at the same rate and the graphics are the same, etc...

[Guest shroomy01]

Ok AMD 64 bit IS about 5 or 6 times better than Intel Pentium 4 The reason is an intel processor has about a 1/4 of the cach rate meaning it can do more at once and also the nw 64 bit doubles the binary intake so if you get a AMD 3000 64 bit instead of 32 bits off binary per milli second 64 goes through per millisecond in witch case the AMD 3000 is a 2 GHz processor and doubling its binary prcessing time makes it around 4 GHz even though the AMD 3000 64 bit says its only 2 GHz.

 

P.S. Sorry for confusing writing i just type my mind and my mind is Pretty Scrambled.

[5614]

You wouldn't notice the difference quite how you make it sound. If you replaced a 2GHz 32bit processor with a 2Ghz 64bit processor your system would not suddenly boot up twice as fast, load programs twice as fast etc... however obviously it would be a bit quicker.

 

I think a better way to approach it is to ask, assuming you are a home user, do you really need a 64bit processor?

 

Only people who do a lot of professional level rendering and graphics work would even use that much power, I mean, obviously if you have the money floating around why not spend it, but the majority of people don't, or if they did they'd rather get a slightly better graphics card and a bit more RAM than sacrifice those just to get 64bit.

[Klaynos]

Keep in mind, for the handheld I don't need something with massive amounts of power - I don't want it to be a desktop replacement, I want it to be a kind of super-PDA with the power of a scaled-down computer - I just need something that is decent enough so that I can run non-CPU-heavy games (that would be the heaviest work on the processor).

 

 

Your majour concern here will be power consumption and heat disapation, I would strongly advise not using a desktop (or probably even a laptop depending on size) processor in this, also have you considered which os you are going to run?

[calbiterol]

Yeah, as I said above, probly some form of linux. I wasn't planning on using a desktop processor. And as far as the handheld goes, I don't think I really need a 64 bit. It's not like the thing is going to be a desktop replacement; I want it to have about the functionality of a tablet PC with about 1/2 to 1/3 of the space/size.

[jdurg]

Ok AMD 64 bit IS about 5 or 6 times better than Intel Pentium 4 The reason is an intel processor has about a 1/4 of the cach rate meaning it can do more at once and also the nw 64 bit doubles the binary intake so if you get a AMD 3000 64 bit instead of 32 bits off binary per milli second 64 goes through per millisecond in witch case the AMD 3000 is a 2 GHz processor and doubling its binary prcessing time makes it around 4 GHz even though the AMD 3000 64 bit says its only 2 GHz.

 

P.S. Sorry for confusing writing i just type my mind and my mind is Pretty Scrambled.

 

That is as wrong and incorrect as you can get. PLEASE do some research before making a post like that. 64 bit does NOT mean that it is 'twice as fast' as 32 bit. In fact, in certain cases it can actually be slower than a 32 bit processor. The 'bit' just defines how large of a number the processor can handle. A standard 32-bit processor can handle numbers up to 32 bits in size while a 64-bit processor can handle numbers up to 64 bits in size. So the 64 bit processor is able to handle larger numbers and larger sets of data, provided that the motherboard and RAM can provide that large amount of data. The 64 bit processor also requires that the instructions and data given to it are in a 64 bit format, otherwise it won't work. Saying that a 64 bit CPU is twice as fast as a 32 bit CPU is like saying that a dual processor system is twice as fast as a single processor system. That couldn't be further from the truth. The vast, vast, vast majority of software and games out there cannot take advantage of 64 bit processing since they don't require calculations of such a high intensity and magnitude that 64 bits is required.

 

So to sum this up, a 64 bit processor is NOT twice as fast as a 32 bit processor. In fact, unless it is fed 64 bit data by an OS that can handle 64 bit data, it may even be a teency bit slower than a 32 bit processor.

[Pangloss]

The AMD 64-bit twin-core processors are starting to look like the mainstream performance sweet spot for 2005/2006. It finally brings AMD fully into the multi-threaded world for mainstream desktops, a place Intel has dominated with the hyperthreaded processors, and maintains those performance advantages which AMD currently has (e.g. games).

 

One thing that I think is going to be interesting over the next year is going to be the question of whether gaming will continue to drive mainstream desktop development, or fall by the wayside as console games (Xbox 360, PS3, etc) pick up momentum. This is supposed to be "the year of HDTV" (which the gaming consoles support much better than desktop PCs), and I'm thinking it will also turn into "the year of computers in home theater environments" (I know, not very catchy).

 

If that happens, it may be that we will see a return to non-gaming computers leading the way in mainstream desktop sales. More emphasis on multi-threaded applications, more emphasis on information technology and convenience software, home automation, and home media server.

 

But most interesting about this is that the end of the home computer for gaming may spell the end of AMD's perceived performance advantage over Intel.

 

("A blade server in every home! Woot!")

[Dave]

One thing that I think is going to be interesting over the next year is going to be the question of whether gaming will continue to drive mainstream desktop development, or fall by the wayside as console games (Xbox 360, PS3, etc) pick up momentum. This is supposed to be "the year of HDTV" (which the gaming consoles support much better than desktop PCs), and I'm thinking it will also turn into "the year of computers in home theater environments" (I know, not very catchy).

 

An interesting thing to note is that all 3 of the new consoles coming out are being powered by IBM-manufactured chips. Whilst AMD and Intel chips are quite good, the architecture in the IBM PowerPC chips they're shoving into G5's is rather good. I believe that the chip being used in the Xbox 360 is a PowerPC derivative. PS3's Cell CPU is rather different, though.

 

The only problem with that PowerPC 970 is the massive heat-envelope, which prompted Apple to make their latest systems liquid cooled - hence no PowerBook G5 yet

[Pangloss]

Yah, that is interesting. It's also particularly noteworthy given the rumor flying around today that Apple is considering using Intel chips in future Macs, which would put a serious dent in IBM's chip business. A year from now the consoles may be all that's keeping them in business. Of course it's probably just a bargaining position on Apple's part, but you never know.

[jcarlson]

Yah, that is interesting. It's also particularly noteworthy given the rumor flying around today that Apple is considering using Intel chips in future Macs, which would put a serious dent in IBM's chip business. A year from now the consoles may be all that's keeping them in business. Of course it's probably just a bargaining position on Apple's part, but you never know.

 

If apple stops using IBM chips, it won't put a dent in their chip business. IBM makes virtually ALL of its money in the server and supercomputer markets, where its chips are VERY ubiquitous.

[Pangloss]

But as I understand it a lot of IBM's server sales are based on Intel or AMD products. IBM makes around $5 billion/yr off the PowerPC and abotu $15-20 billion off server sales, right? The PowerPC chips don't run Windows Server, which accounts for something like 32% of server sales (IDC, Q4 2004, now tied with UNIX for #1). PPC buyers are limited to Linux (or AIX or Solaris, but IBM is pushing those users towards Linux).

 

And four or five million lost unit sales per year from a change at Apple will make a dent in anybody's wallet.

 

But no, I think a move to Intel chips is unlikely for Apple. This is just a move to prompt IBM to hurry up with its next-generation chip plans, which have not yet been announced.

[5614]

I still think in the long run we have to look for IBM + Sony + Toshiba's PS3 chip aka The Cell, with 9 cores and 234 million (specially tuned) transistors it should revolutionise processor technologies, again it's coming from IBM and neither Intel nor AMD.