AMD vs INTEL
- Started
- Last post
- 27 Responses
- CafeSuaDa
Now, i'm sure we all talked about this which is the best etc. but mine q is different.
What chip is good for Media/web/graphic designing? For a PC.
I like to hear from everyone. Thanks
- Boz0
It changed over the years, from intel to amd then back to Intel. Currently definitely Intel for everything with the new Conroe and Woodcrest processors. They are out and should be available very soon almost everywhere.
Btw, Woodcrest is a dual processors dual core solution for workstations and servers (these are actually Xeons based on the new Conroe), while Conroe processors are desktop version processors that have no capability of running in multi-processor environments, though they are dual core.
The fastest Woodcrest right now is 3.0Ghz version with 4mb L2 cache and 1333Mhz FSB. Conroe goes to 2.97Ghz Extreme Edition and is pretty much the same except with less L2 cache.
AMD, was the ruler, Opteron series of processors (read 285-290 series) are still very good processors. They can hold their own against new Xeons, however it is important to point out that new Conroe and Woodcrest processors are currently the fastest on the market.
They show advantage over fastest AMD processors (even overclocked) up to 40% and the price is really competitive. You can get a Conroe at 2.66Ghz that will absolutely wipe out anything from AMD at around $400, and this Conroe is not the fastest. Not to mention the new Conroe processors overclock like motherfucker. People are already reaching 5Ghz with 2.33Ghz or 2.6ghz versions.
You can put money on this: Apple has been waiting for these processors to revamp new x86 PowerMacs. You will see very soon new Powermacs with Woodcrests.
Unfortunately for AMD they have absolutely nothing in their roadmap that will match anything from Intel's latest generation of processors at least until 2009. The only thing AMD is hoping will allow them to stay competitive is the new K8L generation of processors, but judging by some experts it might just not be enough.
So if you're buying a computer and you want to save, new Intel Conroe processors are your best choice. Faster, cooler and great overclocking for a low price.
If you want to spend some green, then go with dual Woodcrests at 3.0Ghz. Those puppies ROCK and will absolutely obliterate anything you throw at them.If you still decide, for some reason to go for AMD Opterons or FX62 new AM2 generation of FX processors support DDR2 memory and is really the only wise choice.
In conclusion, Intel is winning this round big time, and it's gonna last, unless something completely unpredictable happens, for at least 2-3 years, you are much better off with Intel now.
Hope that helps.
- Mirpour0
damn well said... Intel has indeed taken the leed now with the Conroe.. prices overall will drop too both Intel/AMD when it starts to sell
- ********0
how many of these threads have been on here ? from now on refer to boz nuff said
- ********0
woodcrest is such a comforting name...way better than the sci fi names like xeon and celeron...they should name one Spock
- chunkified0
AMD Dual Core processors over anything Intel at the moment.
benchmakrs on the above site will back that up. prices have recently dropped on the AMD dual core processors.
you can buy them from...difference between intel and amd is that you will get a whole lot more for your buck with amd. intel cpu's are overpriced and badly made. as i said... benchmarks will back that up.
huzzah
- ********0
i have read that amd is a solid work horse for highend high performance software whereas intel markets (and raises prices for marketing) for office stuff and multi tasking
- hiten0
right now from what I have read AMD is better then INTEL especially their DUO CORES...
I just put together though a solid computer 3 days ago its a Pentium 4 3ghz, 2gb ram for about $650 CAD that includes the purchase of a case and fan and those kinda things. Seems to work well...i was one a very tight budget, but seems to do the trick.
- chunkified0
for multitasking, dual core amd's completely shit on amd core duo.
as i said b4 check the benchmarks. they test hi end software and day to day software.
notice how amd opteron cpu's are replacing xeon's in a the server/hi-end market.
an example
- chunkified0
i've always built my workstations around AMD cpus. :)
with the right cooling you can also overclock them by a large amount. my rendering computer is an amd dual core 4400 (2200mhz on each core) which has been overclocked to a 5200 (2600mhz on each core)... and that's just with a standard heatsink and fan.
- Chief0
chunkified, you must be referring to the older xeons, the new woodcrests will definitely put intel ahead.
according to that site you posted:
re:Cinema 4d
http://www.techreport.com/etc/20…re:3ds max
http://www.techreport.com/etc/20…woodcrest also set records in two other tests.
if fact, if you read that article it seems as though amd will have a hard time keeping up, even with their new opterons. and just wait until the new cloverton/tigerton intels come out the first of next year. quad-core, baby!
- CafeSuaDa0
wwhoa boz you should work for intel, ya that helpped a lot thanks everyone im gon intel then.
In conclusion, Intel is winning this round big time, and it's gonna last, unless something completely unpredictable happens, for at least 2-3 years, you are much better off with Intel now.
Hope that helps.
Boz
(Jul 8 06, 03:22)
- chunkified0
"chunkified, you must be referring to the older xeons, the new woodcrests will definitely put intel ahead."
--
new 'generation' processor benchmarking against older generation one...**
core duo is a new processor and still can't compete...even with some of amd's single core processors.
http://www.techreport.com/review…
as i said b4... you'll get alot more for your buck from amd.
- chunkified0
In conclusion, Intel is winning this round big time, and it's gonna last, unless something completely unpredictable happens, for at least 2-3 years, you are much better off with Intel now.
--
there is not round to win as amd haven't released their new cpus yet. not sure when they are being released either.
- CafeSuaDa0
whhhhaaatt it doesnt suport 64bit? so no vista?
- chunkified0
lol huh?
- CafeSuaDa0
donnt you need 64-bit support inorder to use vista? the ilnk you send chunk said that intel duo do dont do 64
- chunkified0
i don't think core duo do 64bit... i've never questioned it though... just assumed they did. no you don't need 64bit to use vista. there are two interations of each version of vista. 32bit and 64bit (x86 and x64). i'm using the 64bit version of xp and its alot more stable and allows you to use more than 4gbs ram.
- CafeSuaDa0
ahh ok thanks bud makes sense =P
- chunkified0
no probs :)
ive installed 64 bit of vista beta 2 but havent used it yet... will let you know what it's like
- Boz0
chunkfield you are maybe the worst case of AMD fanboy that I've seen recently LOL>
Get on with the program dude. Intel is winning and it's normal, they have more money, more people, it was just a matter of time. Your comparisons with Netburst architecture is ridiculous.
As for the statement "it's not fair" to compare new generation and old one. It's not fair to who?
For the guy who started the thread this is totally not important. On the other hand AMD fanboys (read kids, who got into computers last few years) had no problem comparing new Athlon64 when it came out to old Netburst Pentiums. It's the way of the market and technology my friend, there will always be a next generation, and btw these processors are available. So why would he buy AMD? Intel IS FASTER, CHEAPER, runs COOLER and overclocks better then any AMD available.Intel is here to stay. Read a bit and you will see that all experts agree that AMD will have hard time counter-punching Intel. Even K8L on paper doesn't look that good.
Now back to the whole thing. I don't give a shit who is better AMD or Intel (they are both greedy ass companies), I just want the fastest computer for the money THE END. Today and in the next 2-3 years it's INTEL no doubt about it.
Even AMD said in their press reports that they will not be working on speeds of their processors for some time in the future, but concentrate more on creating new features.
CafesuaDa, don't listen to him, he's just defending blindly something that he bought and can't get over the fact that there are things that are so much faster then what he bought.
You should definitely go with Intel. Trust me, I own both AMD and Intel computers, if the Woodcrests and Conroes were not out, I would say AMD all the way, old Intel Netburst processors were hot, slower then AMD and consumed too much power. Trust me I have dual Xeons 3.6 right here, but with the new processors you can't go wrong and it's a much better long term investment for the money.
Cheers.