YourPrinter
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 517
i meant there amd xp's my friends 2800+ is really sluggish sometimes
Dilemma Between CPU's
- Thread starter YourPrinter
- Start date
- Status
xxdryicexx
In Runtime
- Messages
- 195
AMD: Pros:
-Faster stock clockspeeds then intels when comparing prices..
-Better 64 bit cpu's then intel. But then again, 64 bit applications will only begin to hit the market in ATLEAST 1 year..
AMD: Cons:
-Quick to overheat. Especially in the summer. Stock heatsink/fan will Not cut it if you are trying to run low temps.. Do not even think about OC'ing an AMD to any significant speeds with its stock heatsink/fan.
Intel: Pros:
-HT ready, HT is not great, but its an option. What HT does it simulates anoter cpu, often called a 'Ghost' cpu, and allows for much better multi-tasking, although HT is situational, it is still an option.
-Higher FSB speed.. almost double. While 800mhz fsb is overkill, it still has its advantages over 400mhz fsb.
-Easier to overclock due to the fact that intel cpu's are generally smaller chips, resulting in less heat output. You can do well with the crappy heatsink/fan that comes with intels.. My cpu runs at 38-40c idle and 42-45c on heavy load.. very nice temps for stock hs/fan, considering im in newyork and its friggin hot!
Intel: Cons:
-Costly, at stock speeds, getting an intel to match an amd's stock clockspeeds will cost you 30-40 bucks more.. i'd say the 3200+ 2.2ghz barton is equivalent to the 3.0ghz northwood, but the 3.0ghz is about 20-30 bucks more..
-Longer pipelines lead to slower performance when compared to the shorter ones which amd's have.
Conclusion:
It all depends on how much you want to spend. I spent 400 dollars on my cpu/ram/mobo and it runs just fine, I am a hardcore gamer and couldnt be any happier. When the time comes, I will OC my cpu, and the good thing about intels is they OC like a dream. No overheating concerns if you take the proper steps.
Also, lets not forget.. if you buy an amd and are concerned about heat, you will have to spend 40-50 dollars on a good heatsink/fan anyway, thus putting the price range at a 1:1 ratio between amd's and intels. (I am talking about xp's and p4's, I do not know about 64 bits)
So, Am I being biased? slightly, yes.. I am not no fanboy, but I just like intels, despite the fact that they can be a bit pricey, Its not an issue for me. But what I have mentioned above are all facts.
You decide.
-Faster stock clockspeeds then intels when comparing prices..
-Better 64 bit cpu's then intel. But then again, 64 bit applications will only begin to hit the market in ATLEAST 1 year..
AMD: Cons:
-Quick to overheat. Especially in the summer. Stock heatsink/fan will Not cut it if you are trying to run low temps.. Do not even think about OC'ing an AMD to any significant speeds with its stock heatsink/fan.
Intel: Pros:
-HT ready, HT is not great, but its an option. What HT does it simulates anoter cpu, often called a 'Ghost' cpu, and allows for much better multi-tasking, although HT is situational, it is still an option.
-Higher FSB speed.. almost double. While 800mhz fsb is overkill, it still has its advantages over 400mhz fsb.
-Easier to overclock due to the fact that intel cpu's are generally smaller chips, resulting in less heat output. You can do well with the crappy heatsink/fan that comes with intels.. My cpu runs at 38-40c idle and 42-45c on heavy load.. very nice temps for stock hs/fan, considering im in newyork and its friggin hot!
Intel: Cons:
-Costly, at stock speeds, getting an intel to match an amd's stock clockspeeds will cost you 30-40 bucks more.. i'd say the 3200+ 2.2ghz barton is equivalent to the 3.0ghz northwood, but the 3.0ghz is about 20-30 bucks more..
-Longer pipelines lead to slower performance when compared to the shorter ones which amd's have.
Conclusion:
It all depends on how much you want to spend. I spent 400 dollars on my cpu/ram/mobo and it runs just fine, I am a hardcore gamer and couldnt be any happier. When the time comes, I will OC my cpu, and the good thing about intels is they OC like a dream. No overheating concerns if you take the proper steps.
Also, lets not forget.. if you buy an amd and are concerned about heat, you will have to spend 40-50 dollars on a good heatsink/fan anyway, thus putting the price range at a 1:1 ratio between amd's and intels. (I am talking about xp's and p4's, I do not know about 64 bits)
So, Am I being biased? slightly, yes.. I am not no fanboy, but I just like intels, despite the fact that they can be a bit pricey, Its not an issue for me. But what I have mentioned above are all facts.
You decide.
YourPrinter said:
I have owned Durons, Thunderbirds and XP's (Barton core) and they never slow down on me.
Maybe your friend suffers from background applications draining bandwidth from your CPU/Memory.
Run "msconfig" -> "Startup" and remove any programs you dont think you need.
Don't be worried within this "Startup" tab, you can turn ALL off them off and your system will still boot.
There are several other tips I could provide you with to speed up your computer but they are for another Forum.
CrucialLabs
In Runtime
- Messages
- 194
I would recommend going with AMD.
I like their speed and they do not cost an arm and a leg. I have 2 AMD processors and about every computer I have built is an AMD. I think the reason your friends computer is slowing down is like Kangaroo said, background progs.
AMD has better processing power and though it does not support dual channel it still beats Intel on all the benchmarks we run in the lab.
Dual channel and hyperthreading is misleading, you will only get around a 2% performance increase using either. So, I would go with AMD, they have a price and performance edge. Do not be too concerned about not having the programs or OS to utilize the power of the Athlon 64 processor, it will come in time and you will have a processor that will handle it then. Think of the future when buying new components.
I like their speed and they do not cost an arm and a leg. I have 2 AMD processors and about every computer I have built is an AMD. I think the reason your friends computer is slowing down is like Kangaroo said, background progs.
AMD has better processing power and though it does not support dual channel it still beats Intel on all the benchmarks we run in the lab.
Dual channel and hyperthreading is misleading, you will only get around a 2% performance increase using either. So, I would go with AMD, they have a price and performance edge. Do not be too concerned about not having the programs or OS to utilize the power of the Athlon 64 processor, it will come in time and you will have a processor that will handle it then. Think of the future when buying new components.
xxdryicexx
In Runtime
- Messages
- 195
"Dual channel and hyperthreading is misleading, you will only get around a 2% performance increase using either."
listen, lab tester.. if your going to post soemthing, back it up.
let me see those "lab tests" where you got your "2%" increase from. as a "lab tester" you should know to provide facts OVER opinions.
Hyperthreading can be very useful at moments, but very useless at others, but the fact that its an OPTION, makes it worth it.
listen, lab tester.. if your going to post soemthing, back it up.
let me see those "lab tests" where you got your "2%" increase from. as a "lab tester" you should know to provide facts OVER opinions.
Hyperthreading can be very useful at moments, but very useless at others, but the fact that its an OPTION, makes it worth it.
- Status
