AMD vs Pentium

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cogwork

In Runtime
Messages
121
There's a lot of discussion on these boards about which CPU type is better - Pentium vs AMD.

I know next to nothing about how these CPUs work or any of the terminology, so I don' know the reasons why, say, a 2 Gigahertz AMD can be faster than a 2.5 Gigahertz Pentium etc.

All I know is my crappy K6 2 500 is about the same as a Pentium 2 300, at least in terms of emulation and a few games. Is the opposite true for the current and recent generation of CPUs?
 
Ha rakesh, I read that thread and that's why I posted this one! - pipe line length and all that bobbins doesn't mean a thing to me. What do these terms mean, and why are they important?
 
Cogwork said:
Ha rakesh, I read that thread and that's why I posted this one! - pipe line length and all that bobbins doesn't mean a thing to me. What do these terms mean, and why are they important?

I'm not a hardware engineer but i think the pipeline that Rakesh mentioned are the main 'data channels', if you will, that transfers data from the processors' core to the L1/L2 cache back & forth
 
let me break it down, amd's are good for one thing.. speed. if you are looking for a good stock speed cpu, then get an amd.. you will not be dissapointed. their trick to beat intel cpu's at stock speeds is to shorten their pipe-line (as Lone Wolf stated, Data Channels), resulting in faster transfer then intel's..

Sounds good right? but what this results to is abnormal overheating.. even people who spend 40-50 dollars on cpu fans/heatsinks still get overheating problems.. (last summer my 1800+ UNDERCLOCKED cpu was reaching 60 celcius in the summer while my AC was on with a 40 dollar copper/alluminum/heatsink fan)

Intel on the other hand, have small cpu's but generally larger 'data channals" resulting in slower rate overall.. bottom line is, a 3200+ 2.2ghz (one of the last released amd's before they went into 64bits) is nearly as fast as a 2.8ghz pentium.. one thing people do not realize though, when buying the pre-64 bit cpu's is intel cpu's are alot safer to overclock, and overclock by alot.. unless you are spending 100-200 dollars on a water cooling system, amd's will run HOT when overclocked.. Not sure about the 64 bit cpu's, but the xp's, bartons, etc..will run HOT..

I made a little comparison list of a 3200+ and a 2.8c HT processor in the link provided above, and I stay by it.

Bottom line. If you have a very good heatsink/fan and DO NOT plan on OC'ing your cpu, then by all means get a amd.. if you want the extra "ghost" cpu with HT (helps in some situations by alot), want the extra fsb, reliable ocing and dont have a good heat solutions, go for intel. simple as that..

If you are a hardcore gamer, then both are equal, beacuse a harcore gamer would be torn between getting the faster amd or simply overclocking his intel to be faster then the amd without much or any stability loss.
 
Not really.. pentiums make excelent game pc's.. have you read anything I have just wrote, or do you do nothing but repeat what yuo hear from the internet or your buddies, whatever..
 
xxdryicexx said:
Not really.. pentiums make excelent game pc's.. have you read anything I have just wrote, or do you do nothing but repeat what yuo hear from the internet or your buddies, whatever..

What he said was true of the current CPU's...... The onboard memory controller of the AMD64 is what destroy's the P4's in gaming:confused: The EE is close, but not practical obviously:confused: :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom