AMD Processor vs Intel Processor

[waynejkruse10]

That test is at least a month old, and its in Australia where the 3.46ghz has just been released. Also, the 3.46 ghz is the Extreme Edition, so it would perform very well for the clock speed. Also, would the 3.76 GHZ (which i didnt see at newegg) perform more than the EE? Also, does the 3.76 GHZ cost more than the EE, because the EE and FX 55 are both similarly priced (the intel is still a bit more expensive).

 

[ReverseFluxx]

Oh, it's the 3.73, not 3.76, my bad. And I guess the Intel 570 is supposed to be even better. I couldn't find either on Newegg either though... so I wonder what the prices are.

 

[Catbert]

There is ALWASYS going to be some difference of opinions on which is better. It's widely reconised (even by the companies) that Intel perform better in applications such as video encoding etc and AMD at gaming.

In a recent test performed by a custom hardware mag the AMD 64's did come out tops but this test took everything into consideration (I.E. Performance, Price, Support etc). They test 21 chips in total of which the top 6 were AMD.

That said, Intel were not far behind and have produced their own version of a 64 bit CPU.

The Intel P4 600 series.

http://news.techwhack.com/730/intel-600-series-pentium-4/

 

[waynejkruse10]

im interested in seeing some 64 bit benchmarks with a 64 bit complient windows os. Its annoying how Microsoft released Win XP - 64 after Intel released thier chips but not when AMD released thiers.

 

[Catbert]

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/pentium4-600/index.x?pg=1

Found a better review <----

 

[VIII]

thats a good review, i went through all 17 pages lol... i think it really shows the thing about AMD n gaming... although, amd have had longer to perfect their 64 bit in the fx-55, truly a mad chip but watch out, intel seem to be doing some good

 

[Catbert]

I`ll give it to Intel, they are excellent at what they do and have done alot for the PC industry, I just don't like the fact they expect you to pay a premium because of it.

 

[VIII]

yeah, that i get.. its like amd have had 64 bit chips out for ages and now intel are like wow everyone 64 bits! its like they think no1 has seen em b4.. and they charge through the roof.. but i spose its because none of those chips would really be considered midrange, like with amd uve got the 2800,3000,3200.. all the new pentium chips are up with the top amd chips there arent any affordable ones, yet

 

[d505flyer]

AMD quietly took the lead position in the market place over a year ago. They did it without advertising (compared to Intel). They did it by offering us CPUs that go faster for less money. Their only draw back for the average user is heat but that is easily over come with any number of great cooling fans & heatsinks on the market. I often tell my customers they can go 20 -30% faster for 30 - 50% less money by going AMD over Intel.

Dual 248 Opterons
Tyan Tiger K8W motherboard
Antec Black 3U Rackmount Chassis with 550 Watt PS
2 GB DDR PC2700 ECC
Dual 200 GB SATA drives - raid capable but not raided.
Plextor 16X Double Layer DVD±RW
Sony DVD ROM
nVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra Video Card, 256MB GDDR3, 256-Bit, HDTV-Out/Dual DVI
LifeView FlyVideo 2000 Video Capture Card
Windows XP Pro
Dual 17" BenQ LCDs

 

[Blind_Arrow]

History has changed, heat issue is with Intel now, not AMD.

90nm Intels went up to 115W from 89W typical on 130nm core, whilst, AMD went down from 87W to 67W on 90nm transition.