Intel EM64 or AMD 64?? - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Monitors, Printers and Peripherals
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 07-29-2005, 01:17 AM   #1 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2
Unhappy Intel EM64 or AMD 64??

hello! i am looking forward to buy a very-high-end pc, basically for home usage as well as a developer's and gamer's pc. i am confused between Intel P4 EM64 and AMD 64-bit processors. i am in serious need of help. are there any issues with Intel EM64 or AMD64 currently which i should look for and r expected to be rectified in near future? or should i wait for some more time? can someone provide me with a link to a proper comparision between the two (based on genuine benchmarks)? plz help me make a good buy (keeping prices in mind).
__________________

coder_geek is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 02:31 AM   #2 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Mr. Switch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,841
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Switch
Default

go with the AMD 64's. they have had well over a year to mature and the architecture is more advanced. AMD 64's also have the upper hand in game performance becuase they can do more cycles per clock. you said that you are buying a high end system, so you should either get a venice core Athlon 64 or a San-deigo Athlon 64. and go the socket 939 route with PCI-Express.
__________________

Mr. Switch is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 02:34 AM   #3 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,543
Default

Anything with gaming in it...hands down the AMD.
__________________
15'' Macbook Pro
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.16ghz
x1600 128MB
1GB DDR2 SDRAM
Windows XP/Mac OSX 10.5


No longer a Guru of games...
GameGURU is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 02:51 AM   #4 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,261
Default

Wait is the EM the dual core? If it's not... then AMD 64.
woot7800GT is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 04:01 AM   #5 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 530
Send a message via AIM to TheHeadFL
Default

AMDs do not do more "cycles per clock", they do more instructions per clock cycle, however that does not make them automatically better than Intel processors, which have a lower IPC (instructions per clock) but run higher clock frequencies.

That said, if you plan to run in 32 bit, its a tossup depending on what you want to do, each chip has its strengths.

If you intend to run in 64 bit mode (and run a 64 bit OS and applications) then all benchmarks say go for the AMD64 chip.
__________________
Desktop machine: 2 x Opteron 246, Asus K8N-DL, 2GB PC3200 ECC Reg., XFX GeForce 6600GT, 74gb WD Raptor, 2 x 19\" LCDs, Windows XP x64
Server machine: Intel P4 3.0GHz 2MB EM64T, ECS i865pe, 1GB PC3200, 36gb WD Raptor, Windows Server 2003
Laptop: Dell Inspiron 9100 (Intel P4 3.2GHz 1MB Prescott, i865pe, 512MB PC3200, Mobility Radeon 9700, DVD+R/DL Burner), Windows XP
Linux: P3 450Mhz, 386MB ram, Slackware 10.1 (Running mySQL/Apache)
TheHeadFL is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 05:14 AM   #6 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,782
Default

AMD, they are more efficient, great games performers. Also i heard that 64bit Intel Chips permform crap with 32bit Progs (or am i hearing false info?)
__________________
Core 2 Duo E6400, DFI Infinity 975X/G, 2x 512mb DDR2 667mhz, Albatron 7900gt, WD 200gb SATA, Samsung DVD-RW, Silverstone ST-50EF 500w PSU.
waynejkruse10 is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 06:18 AM   #7 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 530
Send a message via AIM to TheHeadFL
Default

You're mostly correct there, other than I would say they don't perform like "crap", just not as well as in 32 bit mode.
__________________
Desktop machine: 2 x Opteron 246, Asus K8N-DL, 2GB PC3200 ECC Reg., XFX GeForce 6600GT, 74gb WD Raptor, 2 x 19\" LCDs, Windows XP x64
Server machine: Intel P4 3.0GHz 2MB EM64T, ECS i865pe, 1GB PC3200, 36gb WD Raptor, Windows Server 2003
Laptop: Dell Inspiron 9100 (Intel P4 3.2GHz 1MB Prescott, i865pe, 512MB PC3200, Mobility Radeon 9700, DVD+R/DL Burner), Windows XP
Linux: P3 450Mhz, 386MB ram, Slackware 10.1 (Running mySQL/Apache)
TheHeadFL is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 06:38 AM   #8 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,782
Default

fair enough.
__________________
Core 2 Duo E6400, DFI Infinity 975X/G, 2x 512mb DDR2 667mhz, Albatron 7900gt, WD 200gb SATA, Samsung DVD-RW, Silverstone ST-50EF 500w PSU.
waynejkruse10 is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 08:07 AM   #9 (permalink)
Memberbot
 
Elbatrop1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,057
Default

To add onto what everyone has said here:

I want to clarify that both chips are actually quite powerful. If you go one or the other, you probably wont even notice a difference in performance.

It all really comes down to a couple fps (really, only a couple) in games and a couple milliseconds in renders, decodes, encodes, etc.

But to find out which one has the edge check these sites for benchmarks:
www.anandtech.com
www.xbitlabs.com
www.tomshardware.com

And, to compare prices, just go to www.newegg.com
__________________

Intel E6750...........PSN: ELBATROP
XFX nForce 650i Ultra
Patriot PC2-6400 8GB (4x2GB)
eVGA 9800GT
36GB WD Raptor
120GB SG
1TB SG
Logitech X-530
Samsung SyncMaster 931c
Samsung SyncMaster 750s
Windows 7 Home Premium 64
Elbatrop1 is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 10:18 AM   #10 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 142
Default

gaming=AMD
__________________

jester6565 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 08:32 PM.


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