Honest AMD vs Intel Question - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-24-2006, 12:30 PM   #1 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 108
Default Honest AMD vs Intel Question

Ok, now I know I'm not all knowing with computers, but I know quite a bit having built a few of them. One thing has been bothering me though;

I know that there is a considerable difference with 64 bit cpu's, but what is it? I'm sure there must be some reason why I see so many people preffering an AMD64 @ 2.2+ ghz over an intel @ 3.0+ What kind of difference is it? Overall speed? How would I have to use the computer to be able to notice the difference? I always thought the more ghz and fsb the better, then how come AMD's seem to always be one step behind intel? I never see an AMD @ 3.4 ghz.

Anyway, sorry for so many questions, but I'm really curious...
__________________

bmitchell73 is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 02:29 PM   #2 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 969
Default

AMD's Athlon64 is much more efficient than the Pentium 4 line. They can do much more per clock cycle, than a P4. The new Core 2 Duo's from Intel are ever more efficient than the Athlon64.
__________________

__________________
<br><br><font color=\"black\"><b>There's No Place Like </b></font><font color=\"red\"><b>127.0.0.1</b></font><br>
AnthraX is offline  
Old 09-24-2006, 03:06 PM   #3 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 146
Default

From what I understand 64 bit processors allow you to run 64 bit applications (like the 64 bit version of windows). What this actually means in terms of everyday performance... I don't know. I don't even know how many applications are 64 bit right now (I think Vistas will be?).

As far as why someone would pick a CPU with a lower specified Ghz or FSB... there could be many reasons. One thing to know is that the performance you are going to get out of a CPU isn't necessarily determined by Ghz and FBS alone. Part of the problem is with the way each company decides how the define speed. In the case of AMD ghz specs vs. Intel Ghz specs, I have always understood that while AMD lists lower Ghz (i.e AMD 2.2ghz vs. Intel 3.0), their processors do more per cycle then Intel processors. Thus the Intel processor would be running quicker clock cycles with less information per cycle and AMD would be running slower clock cycles with more information per cycle.... but at the end of a given amount of time the actual work done by each processor would be about the same. As a marketing strategy, knowing that the general public put such a high value on Ghz alone, AMD put a tag on their processors that supposedly gives a Ghz rating in "Intel" terms. So the full (marketing) name for that AMD64 2.2 ghz you mentioned is AMD athlon 64 3500+ 2.2ghz... with the 3500+ tag telling you that it is running at roughly 3.5ghz in "Intel" terms.

Of course, most of this has changed now... what with the dual-core craze and all... but I assumed you were talking about the P4/AMDAthlon thing.
moisiss is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 02:20 AM   #4 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 108
Default

Yea I was talking about the P4/AMDAthlon thing, its amazing how fast they come out with newer and faster CPU's. 2 years ago, a 3.2ghz HT was high end...now it's about mid range.
__________________
Current Build (Hope to finish by late spring):
Intel Q6600 g0
Asus Maximus Formula
geIL Evo 2GB (2x1gb) DDR2
ATI HD3870 X2 or Nvidia 9800 X2?
2x 150gb RaptorX (Have it)
Thermaltake Toughpower 750w PSU (Have it)
ZeroTHERM BTF90
Antec P182 Case
HP w2207 22" Monitor (Have it)
bmitchell73 is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 02:37 AM   #5 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
KingAustin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Iowa
Posts: 673
Send a message via AIM to KingAustin
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by bmitchell73
Yea I was talking about the P4/AMDAthlon thing, its amazing how fast they come out with newer and faster CPU's. 2 years ago, a 3.2ghz HT was high end...now it's about mid range.
I would say a 3.2ghz HT is low range... Sucks how much I spent on my 3.2ghz P4 system a little over a year ago, but I have my new system now and love it
__________________
E6300 w/ AF7 Pro 3.11ghz
Gigabyte DS3
2GB G.Skill DDR2 800
7900GT w/ Zalman vf900 650/800
Z-5500 Digital Speakers
22" Chimei + 19" BENQ
XClio 3060
KingAustin is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 03:49 AM   #6 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 639
Default

Well Amd had there day for the "Gaming Cpu" Market... Now its Intel's Core 2 Duo's... Even the cheapest one when overclocked can out peform a AMD 64 FX-60... Now thats impressive
__________________
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3400Mhz
Asus P5B-E
BFG 8800GTX OC
Samsung 400 GB Sata II
Corsair XMS2 2GB DDR2 800 5-5-5-12
Zalman CNPS-9700 LED
Antec Nine Hundred
Hp W2207 22" Widescreen Monitor
Windows Vista Home Premium
Silverstone ST60F 600W PSU
Razer Copperhead Tempest Blue Gaming Mouse
gmanych is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 03:54 AM   #7 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
KingAustin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Iowa
Posts: 673
Send a message via AIM to KingAustin
Default

I predict AMD will have the lead again within a year. With the release of their K8L chips (hopefully mid 2007), this is going to make the computing world very interesting
__________________
E6300 w/ AF7 Pro 3.11ghz
Gigabyte DS3
2GB G.Skill DDR2 800
7900GT w/ Zalman vf900 650/800
Z-5500 Digital Speakers
22" Chimei + 19" BENQ
XClio 3060
KingAustin is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 04:14 AM   #8 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Nitestick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: смерти для спаме
Posts: 8,473
Default

well give me about 30 minutes and i'll be posting a guide
Nitestick is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 04:25 AM   #9 (permalink)
bum
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 286
Default

Athlons actually have a higher fsb (HT) and they do get more done in less clock cycles. I used to have a p4 prescott and it was horrible for gamming, it wasn't smooth and it would overheat and need to shut off. Now I have an amd Opteron an love it because everything runs smoothly unless its a gfx card thing.

There are alot of reasons, but I for one have had both and greatly prefer amd over intel.
__________________
Opteron 175 + Scythe Infinity
Asus A8N32-SLI
2 gigs corsair XMS DDR 400
XFX geforce 6800 XT
X-navigator case
30G Maxtor + 250G Maxtor

"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins
bum is offline  
Old 09-25-2006, 05:15 AM   #10 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Nitestick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: смерти для спаме
Posts: 8,473
Default

ok i've put a guide up that i typed last night

The Truth About Processor Performance

check it out if you like and it would be helpful if you have any criticisms/corrections. i have a feeling it may not be n00b friendly enough but i'm afraid if that's the case i don't know how to improve it
__________________

Nitestick 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 Off
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 08:01 PM.


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