AMD Vs. Intel - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Overclocking and Modding
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-04-2004, 01:25 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 95
Send a message via AIM to joebx902004
Thumbs up AMD Vs. Intel

I wanted to buy a a Intel Pentium 4 Proccesor 3.2 Ghz.
I saw that AMD was cheaper and i want to what would be the equvilent of Athlon XP 3200 in Ghz???


Athlon XP 3200= and Intel Pentium 4 Proccesor (blank) Ghz
__________________

__________________
<img src=\"http://www.geocities.com/counterstrikerx90/tnthis08.jpg \">
www.mushroomconnection.com
Believe in the Magic Shroom :)
joebx902004 is offline  
Old 05-04-2004, 02:16 PM   #2 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 374
Send a message via AIM to Soloman02
Default

in terms of actual clock speed, amd has nothing to match with intel. but there cpus are rated to be equivalent to the intel chips. for example: an amd 3200+ means that it is rated as a 3.2 Ghz cpu, even though the actual clock speed is less. so to complete your statement:

Athlon XP 3200+ = an Intel Pentium 4 Proccesor @ 3.2 Ghz
if you have the money, go with intel, but if you are like me and many other people out there who don't have that kind of money, AMD will be your best choice.
__________________

__________________
Desktop specs:
AMD Athlon XP 2500+@ 200x11 - EPoX 8rda3I - Thermaltake 420watt silent PSU - 2x512MB PNY PC3200(DualChannel) - TT HSF - PNY 5900SE, 128MB DDR, 256-bit - - Toshiba SD-R5002: DVD-RW - NEC DVD-RW - 2 Antec 80mm fans - 1 Delta 92mm fan - 1 Antec 120mm fan- 1 TT 120mm fan - Windows XP Pro - WD special edition 80GB 7200 RPM- Seagate 80GB 7200 RPM 8MB cache - Onboard Sound - Onboard Ethernet

Notebook specs:
ACER Travel Mmate 4000LCi - Intel Pentium M 710 - 15\" XGA TFT - 512MB DDR333 - 40 GB HD - DVD-rom/CD-RW Drive - WLAN 802.11b/g - Winxp Home - Intel Extreme Graphics - Average Battery Life: 4-5 hours - 6.4 lbs
Soloman02 is offline  
Old 05-04-2004, 05:15 PM   #3 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 767
Send a message via AIM to Monster00
Default

I think AMD's are better for gaming. Intels are good for like u know video editing and stuff. I play games and i have a intel but i never really looked into AMD when i was building mine
__________________
Intel 2.8GHZ 800mhz FSB
Western digital 120 GB HD
Western digital 40 GB HD
Asus P4p800s motherboard
1280MB of ram
Xaser III Red and Blue case
Antec 550 watt PSU
BACK TO GOOD OLE CPU FANS(serious not kidding)
ATI readon 9800xt 256 MB
8x DVD burner
52X cd burner
Monster00 is offline  
Old 05-04-2004, 07:10 PM   #4 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 374
Send a message via AIM to Soloman02
Default

well, the thing is, AMD does not have the raw power that intel does, if AMD had the raw power, and still had the same QuantiSpeed™ architecture but with speeds that say 3600+ 3800+ 4000+ 4200+ etc, with the clock speed at say 3.0 or 3.2 Ghz for the 3600+,( and higher for the other ones) then AMD would be king of the hill.
__________________
Desktop specs:
AMD Athlon XP 2500+@ 200x11 - EPoX 8rda3I - Thermaltake 420watt silent PSU - 2x512MB PNY PC3200(DualChannel) - TT HSF - PNY 5900SE, 128MB DDR, 256-bit - - Toshiba SD-R5002: DVD-RW - NEC DVD-RW - 2 Antec 80mm fans - 1 Delta 92mm fan - 1 Antec 120mm fan- 1 TT 120mm fan - Windows XP Pro - WD special edition 80GB 7200 RPM- Seagate 80GB 7200 RPM 8MB cache - Onboard Sound - Onboard Ethernet

Notebook specs:
ACER Travel Mmate 4000LCi - Intel Pentium M 710 - 15\" XGA TFT - 512MB DDR333 - 40 GB HD - DVD-rom/CD-RW Drive - WLAN 802.11b/g - Winxp Home - Intel Extreme Graphics - Average Battery Life: 4-5 hours - 6.4 lbs
Soloman02 is offline  
Old 05-04-2004, 07:25 PM   #5 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 643
Send a message via AIM to anarchy
Default

Hey man, you can find a eleventy billion reply thread on AMD vs. Intel, all you have to do is search. Kids these days...
__________________


Search TF!
<form method=\"get\" action=\"http://www.theriddlehouse.com/random/tfsearch.php\"><input type=\"text\" name=\"search\"> <input type=\"submit\" name=\"submit\" value=\"Search!\"></form></small></font></p></p>
anarchy is offline  
Old 05-05-2004, 09:55 PM   #6 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Soloman02
well, the thing is, AMD does not have the raw power that intel does, if AMD had the raw power, and still had the same QuantiSpeed™ architecture but with speeds that say 3600+ 3800+ 4000+ 4200+ etc, with the clock speed at say 3.0 or 3.2 Ghz for the 3600+,( and higher for the other ones) then AMD would be king of the hill.
Well you either design a chip that can process more IPC or you design one with moderate IPC and a higher core and bus speed. Amd choose the high IPC path, while intel chose the other. You dont need to have a higher bus/core with a higher IPC.

IPC=Instructions per clock/cycle
__________________

ChaosBlizzard is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.