Author Topic: AMD or Intel? (Read 1419 times)

Stringer · « **Reply #15 on:** February 13, 2006, 10:10:10 PM »

In bloom I trust. Although he doesn't know it, I've used his advice in threads many times over when building systems for myself.

38ruk · « **Reply #16 on:** February 13, 2006, 10:15:48 PM »

hiya Bloom long time man ~~38MAW~~

OOZ662 · « **Reply #17 on:** February 13, 2006, 10:41:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bloom25
(really friggen big snip)

Oh sure, bang on my entire system why don't you!

Pongo · « **Reply #18 on:** February 13, 2006, 10:58:41 PM »

Its not a matter of personal preference,
AMD

I havent own a non laptop Intel since my Celeron 366.

OOZ662 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 13, 2006, 11:03:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
Its not a matter of personal preference,
AMD

I havent own a non laptop Intel since my Celeron 366.

Wow...that kinda just proved my point.

Kev367th · « **Reply #20 on:** February 14, 2006, 05:49:02 AM »

Quick clarification on dual cores -

1) The problem is with Windows XP and applies to both AMD and Intel dual cores.
Microsoft changed the thread handler in Windows XP and it loses threads when switching them between cores.
Windows 2000 works flawlessly (look at my sig).

2) AH2 does take a slight advantage of dual core. From speaking with Skuzzy the networking portion of the game is handled by the 'other' core.

3) More and more games are being written or patched to support dual cores. I assume (eek) most people don't play AH2 exclusively.

4) Dual and multi core, for better or worse, are the way both Intel and AMD have said they are moving to almost exclusively.

Power consumption -
Anyone who thinks thats its good a CPU runs like a toaster oven, and draws the average output of a power station doesn't have a clue.
Considering one of the mobos in Toms Hardware test (that was mentioned) was replaced because it was damaged by heat from the CPU.
I'll leave it up to you to guess which CPU it was.

DDR2 - Bloom is correct.
Although it has higher speeds than DDR, it suffers from high latencies.
The thinking is the new AMD socket (M2) that will use DDR2, has enough design changes to negate the high latencies (along with the on die mem controller). Only time will tell.

Krusty · « **Reply #21 on:** February 14, 2006, 07:29:09 AM »

LePaul: I said power consumption DOESN'T matter, not that it does. As long as you have a PSU you're set.

38Ruk: This is the perception I have gained by generally hanging out with people that know more than I do on the matter. I also wonder why, if Intel chips can't be overclocked in a more stable manner, that only have tests been done on Intel chips to overclock them to 6GHz, 7GHz, and even 9GHz (I don't think that was stable enough to boot OS, though).

Bloom: Very informative!

Kev367th · « **Reply #22 on:** February 14, 2006, 12:55:53 PM »

Of course power consumption matters. The more power it draws the hotter it runs!!!

Got a screenie of an Intel (or AMD for that matter) running at up to 9Ghz?

Hell we're still waiting on the long overdue much promised 4Ghz P4.

Krusty · « **Reply #23 on:** February 14, 2006, 03:12:28 PM »

Kev give me a few minutes I'll do a search where I read about it.

UPDATE: Turns out I read about it on a forum that I can't log into from here. Will have to wait til I get home later. It was some wierd setup with liquid nitrogen or some schtuff to cool the rig. It would POST but not load windows (or some such). That's all I remember right now.

One of the runners-up: Linky-thingy

I ran across a new comment while searching for that link up there. No idea how true, but might explain why all these experiments are done on Intel stock.

"The highest overclocks should be separated by processor architecture. I think Intel is around 7.1 and AMD is around 3.9-4.0 from what I have seen at xtremesystems."

I'll give the other forum a search when I get home.

LePaul · « **Reply #24 on:** February 14, 2006, 03:45:37 PM »

Hey bloom, good to see you're still around

Bronk · « **Reply #25 on:** February 14, 2006, 03:53:36 PM »

Krusty the problem with your argument about the Ghz a processor runs at is all but moot.
My little 1.8ghz athlon rig compared to my old 2.5 p4 rig is no comparison.
The 1.8 eats the p4s lunch.
AMD worked hard to prove it's not all about clock speeds and as far as i can tell they did.
Nothing wrong with a P4 system its just not the better gaming rig.

Bronk

Krusty · « **Reply #26 on:** February 14, 2006, 03:57:48 PM »

Bronk I'm not making an argument anymore, just replying to a question

Dace · « **Reply #27 on:** February 14, 2006, 04:04:45 PM »

Thnx for all the info guys, tis excactly what i was lookin for.

Bronk · « **Reply #28 on:** February 14, 2006, 04:07:37 PM »

Ahhh sorry i read it wrong . I thought you were touting the P4s clock speeds make it the better choice.

Bronk

Krusty · « **Reply #29 on:** February 14, 2006, 08:00:17 PM »

Follow-up to Kev: I did a search for every set of keywords I could think of on the other forum I was talking about, couldn't find anything. Couldn't find much, actually. I think the forum got culled. There was an article on some website and the forum was just discussing it and posted the link to it. I never bothered to save it. Might still be out there, but a fast Google search has turned up nothing. Sorry.