• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

intel versus amd + amd lost processing power

coneil1

coneil1

coneil1

Associate
Joined
24 Sep 2006
Posts
34
hi guys

can someone tell which would be the best to choose from INTEL or AMD when choosing a proccesor pro and cons if you can that would be a great help.

aslo can someone PLEASE answer this quiestion that been bugging me for days why do AMD proccesors when bought E.g an old athlon i have is ment to be a 2800 mhz processor buit in the computer it shows up a 1.6GHz proccessor?

thanks
 
pros of intel :
Theyr faster, theyr cheaper
Cons
none

pros of amd:
none
cons of amd
Theyr hotter, theyr more expensive, theyr slower.

shows up as 1.6ghz because amd name theyre cpus on the equivalent P4 it can perform on par with, so a 1.6ghz amd could perform as fast as a 2.8ghz P4.

Pentium4s are the old thing now, intel have core2duos, which DESTROY AMD processors
 
2800+ is a performance rating, 1.6GHz is the clock speed.

At the present time the best cpu's to go for are the Intel Core 2 Duo (Conroe).
 
celliott said:
2800+ is a performance rating, 1.6GHz is the clock speed.

At the present time the best cpu's to go for are the Intel Core 2 Duo (Conroe).
Click to expand...

nicely said dude ;) thats all im saying, conroe 'for now' is best choice, and cracking choice it is :p
 
peetee said:
pros of intel :
Theyr faster, theyr cheaper
Cons
none

pros of amd:
none
cons of amd
Theyr hotter, theyr more expensive, theyr slower.

shows up as 1.6ghz because amd name theyre cpus on the equivalent P4 it can perform on par with, so a 1.6ghz amd could perform as fast as a 2.8ghz P4.

Pentium4s are the old thing now, intel have core2duos, which DESTROY AMD processors
Click to expand...



<sniggers> since when has intel been cheaper than Amd ?
 
since the price of an equivelent performing AMD cpu is almost triple the cost of an intel cpu (read 6300 vs FX60). ;)
 
w3bbo said:
since the price of an equivelent performing AMD cpu is almost triple the cost of an intel cpu (read 6300 vs FX60). ;)
Click to expand...

I must be mistaken but at stock i thought the FX60 was still significantly faster than the 6300.... oh it is
 
it is. your having a laugh if you think amds are hotter OR more expensive. remember you need to be talking about a particular price point, blanket statements like that are utter trash. pound for pound amd have the budget sector sewn up. They run very cool and they are very cheap to boot. I own a top end intel rig and that is where intel shines, but i have no misconceptions about amd.
 
True at stock the E6300 is slower than the FX60, but there are still quite a few price points where the Conroe is better value, cheaper and faster than the AMD Equivilent.

An E6600 @stock 2.4Ghz is able to keep up with an X2 5400+ and its 1 pound cheaper!!!!

To be honest, is it even worth talking about FX procs, they are just like Intels Extremely Expensive editions. Overpriced chips which are the fastest from each brands model line. Generally extreme price, for just a marginal performance increase at stock.

A whole pound! :)

Seriously though, in the midrange, and highend, both intel and AMD are price competitive imho. Both seriously good value for money.

In the bargain basement, single core department AMD still offer the best bang for the buck. For overclocking, clearly the E4300, and E6300 are very hard to beat, as they can be pushed so far its just awesome.
 
Have you tried overlocking a 3800 X2 or 4200 X2 lately? They arn't exactly slow or limited in speed mate. Enough to give a 4300/6300 a run for its money if your on a budget.
 
peetee said:
shows up as 1.6ghz because amd name theyre cpus on the equivalent P4 it can perform on par with, so a 1.6ghz amd could perform as fast as a 2.8ghz P4.
Click to expand...

No AMD have never rated their CPU's as an equivalent to the clock speed of a P4. When AMD chose to abandon the Megahertz Myth they chose to name all their processors with a performance rating as compared to a K7 Athlon Thunderbird of an equivalent clock speed.
 
TheMightyTen said:
No AMD have never rated their CPU's as an equivalent to the clock speed of a P4. When AMD chose to abandon the Megahertz Myth they chose to name all their processors with a performance rating as compared to a K7 Athlon Thunderbird of an equivalent clock speed.
Click to expand...


'officially'. but its widely know that they changed their performance ratings to be more inline with the p4's, whether they admit that or not.
 
It depends what you want to do with it. If its for games, then yea, get a Core2Duo and overclock the knickers off it. Best gaming CPU for the time being.

If its just for websurfing/general office work, then you won't see any difference that will justify the extra £30 - get an OEM AMD X2 3800 with a cheap cooler.
 
oh finally, some posts that make sense.

If you are in to overclocking and have a budget of up to about £130 then there are two options, the E6300 or the E4300. No qualms about that.

If you don't overclock, the X2 3800+ is simply the best choice. It is atleast on par with the 4300 and only a little slower than the 6300, but is significantly cheaper.

Once you get higher up the range, it really is Intel all the way... the 6600 and above really don't have any competition on price v performance. The 6400 is in a bit of a no mans land at the moment it seems.. may aswell go for a 6300 and spend the money elsewhere... or spend a bit more on a 6600.
 
I agree with most of the general seniment above. At the very low cost point, specifically single core processors, AMD are worth their salt. You can pick up a motherboard, 4000+ and a couple of gigs of ram new for less than £250, and if you've got a good stepping (such as the KAB1E that OcUk had 4 months ago) you can hit 2.8-3.1 ghz on air, which is still awesome for gaming.

If you've got £300+ though and you are prepared to overclock, then Intel are really the only choice. An e4300, a decent enough motherboard and a couple of gigs of value PC6400 will likely be all you need to hit 3ghz+ which will demolish any AMD cpu at all overclocked or not.
 
Kamakazie! said:
oh finally, some posts that make sense.

If you are in to overclocking and have a budget of up to about £130 then there are two options, the E6300 or the E4300. No qualms about that.

If you don't overclock, the X2 3800+ is simply the best choice. It is atleast on par with the 4300 and only a little slower than the 6300, but is significantly cheaper.
Click to expand...

Interesting post lads, I currently have a P4 4.2 if I upgraded to a X2 3800+ how much performance increase cwould I be expecting would it be noticable ?
 
bfar said:
It depends what you want to do with it. If its for games, then yea, get a Core2Duo and overclock the knickers off it. Best gaming CPU for the time being.

If its just for websurfing/general office work, then you won't see any difference that will justify the extra £30 - get an OEM AMD X2 3800 with a cheap cooler.
Click to expand...

to add another point - For video editing a E6600 or higher is the way to go. Both platforms are good, but value for money, intel @ the moment offers best performance/value.
 
There is no point buying amd atm, 6300 is on par with a 4200-4400x2(plenty of reviews show this) o/c to a small amount of 2.5 and you beating a fx62, and with price cuts due from intel very soon its easy really to decide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom