newbie AMD vs. Intel question

[bealis14]

I'm confused about the speed of the processors of AMD vs. Intel. One of AMD's fastest processors,athlon 3200, runs at a speed of 2.0GHz, but Intel sells some P4 processors that run at 3.4 GHz or higher. Does this mean that Intel's fastest processors are 1.4GHz faster than AMD's fastest? I'm hearing conflicting reports on which brand is faster. Doesn't the speed (GHz) answer this question, or is there some other factor or description that explains the speed of the processor? All other things being equal, which to do you recommend?

Thanks

[Fas-ligand]

I recommend AMD processor over Intel, but it also depends on which motherboards you prefer to buy. Some use one processor brand more than the other.

Other important factors in actual speed are FSB and cache.

I believe that you pay more for the Intel name per processor than you do the AMD name. So if money is an important determining factor, consider this as well.

...you will get many opinions from G|Aers though :)

[Grumpy]

Originally posted by DarkFury
Heh...

I recommend Intel processors over AMD...

If you are a "newbie" to computer building, generally you will have less compatibility/stability issues using an Intel chip versus an AMD. Maybe this is because more manuafacturers conform to Intel standards... maybe not. Either way, there's just more options available to you when you go Intel.

Until you get into AMD's "64" chips (i.e. very expensive and not yet able to utilize their power) the higher speed Intel P4s generally will romp all over the standard AMD Athlons... as proven by various trade mags. Also the Intels generally run much cooler than the AMDs as well... (which is a definite bonus especially if you want to overclock it as well...)

Pretty much if you are worried about "cost" then you might want to go with AMD...(not that Intels are all that much expensive now where most of the P4 chips are around the $200 mark now for the 2.4 - 2.8 Ghz variants) however I just feel that you "get what you pay for" when you do that. But that's just my own opinion (since thats what's being asked for...)

Honestly... you generally can't go wrong with an Intel chip right now expecially with the P4 "C" series (800 FSB) for reliable and powerful computing.

BTW... comparing AMD's naming scheme to Intels speed rating is really an apples to oranges comparison. So I just wouldn't even try at this point.
:stupid:

you basically get what you pay for. If money is not a problem for you i suggest you go INTEL. but if your money is problem go with AMD.

[Jeffbx]

Raw GHz speeds don't tell the full picture, even within Intel's offering. For example, the Intel Centrino line of laptop processors run at much lower clock speeds than the P4s, but give the same performance as chips with 1.5x their clock speeds.

Have a look at benchmark scores to see how specific processors perform against one another.


(BTW - I prefer Intel as well!)

[Grimm]

GHz is not a measure of speed, it is an indicator, but not a measure.
GHz is the frequency of the processor. Processors of the same line will be faster the higher the frequency. But comparing processors of different lines based on frequency will be inacurate.

AMD processors are a better value. You get more processing power for your buck. Intel are a bit more "standard" in that they require less effort to set up. Realisticaly if you are buying quality components it won't make a difference. Pretty much you can slap them all togetehr and plug it in and, providing everything was properly installed and jumpers set appropriately, it will work.

DF has always shown a pro-Intel bias. I don't blame him, Intel makes some good products. AMD used to have some problems, maybe they will again. But then Intel has had it's difficulties too. It's just a personal prefference. I use both and am happy with both. I lean toward AMD as it is a bit more cost sffective. But if you want a rock solid system you never have to wory about, buy an Intel based 400SC Dell and upgrade the memory and video yourself. If you build a system I would go with AMD 4 out of 5 times.

[johnnymk]

In practically every article which I have been reading lately, the AMD 64 is beating out the new Intel Precott series no matter what the benchmark is.

If AMD weren't around, I would hate to see what a typical Intel processor would cost.

[bachviet]

For comparison, I built plenty of AMD systems (Athlon Thunderbirds and XPs) and I never had compatibility/stability problem.

I just had CPU/MB problem with the Dell 400SC (P4 2.4C) so Intel doesn't mean quality or compatibility.

Just buy whatever you could afford because you can't go wrong with either one.

The AMD 64 pricing is about the same as the P4 "C" but the XP line is cheaper. The AMD 64 is kicking the P4 "C" in most bench mark though.

[LegendKiller]

From a hardware reviewing perspective, it seems as if intel systems are much more stable. I usually see this in stability in short and long term perspective.

Much of this is due to Intel making their own chipsets, which set a standard for everybody to work with, that and they are intimately involved in setting the standards for computers.

I am not biased towards a processor as much as I am biased towards a chipset or mobo manufacturer. Through my experience, Abit has always seemed a bit less stable. Asus the highest quality, but you pay a lot more. Via seems less stable than Intel or Nvidia. SiS is about the same as VIA. Never buy PCChips mobo's.

LK

[johnnymk]

Originally posted by LegendKiller
From a hardware reviewing perspective, it seems as if intel systems are much more stable. I usually see this in stability in short and long term perspective.

Much of this is due to Intel making their own chipsets, which set a standard for everybody to work with, that and they are intimately involved in setting the standards for computers.

I am not biased towards a processor as much as I am biased towards a chipset or mobo manufacturer. Through my experience, Abit has always seemed a bit less stable. Asus the highest quality, but you pay a lot more. Via seems less stable than Intel or Nvidia. SiS is about the same as VIA. Never buy PCChips mobo's.

LK

I know that PCChips gets a bad rap. I have a 5 year old unit. It hasn't given me an ounce of trouble.

[Kevster]

Originally posted by LegendKiller
From a hardware reviewing perspective, it seems as if intel systems are much more stable. I usually see this in stability in short and long term perspective.

Much of this is due to Intel making their own chipsets, which set a standard for everybody to work with, that and they are intimately involved in setting the standards for computers.



Always keep in mind that Intel has had two processor recalls and two chipset recalls compared to AMD's zero on both counts. In my personal opinion Intel has a habit of pushing out manufacturing processes a bit too quickly without enough testing. This has lead to their quality problems in the past.

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by Kevster


Always keep in mind that Intel has had two processor recalls and two chipset recalls compared to AMD's zero on both counts. In my personal opinion Intel has a habit of pushing out manufacturing processes a bit too quickly without enough testing. This has lead to their quality problems in the past.


Your forgetting that AMD doesn't really make its own chipsets. Instead, VIA goes through multiple iterations of chipsets that should have been right the first time. They seem to enjoy using the end user as a beta-tester.

AMD has its own problems.


As I said, I blame mostly mobo manufacturers for many of the problems with the modern day PC. Bad caps, BIOS revisions, poor quality control for mobo's, cheap boards, too few layers, too few caps, chipsets not following PCI/PnP standards, chipsets not following AGP standards...the list can go on and on and on for the problems I have seen.


LK

[bachviet]

Originally posted by LegendKiller



Your forgetting that AMD doesn't really make its own chipsets. Instead, VIA goes through multiple iterations of chipsets that should have been right the first time. They seem to enjoy using the end user as a beta-tester.

AMD has its own problems.


As I said, I blame mostly mobo manufacturers for many of the problems with the modern day PC. Bad caps, BIOS revisions, poor quality control for mobo's, cheap boards, too few layers, too few caps, chipsets not following PCI/PnP standards, chipsets not following AGP standards...the list can go on and on and on for the problems I have seen.


LK
AMD does make its own chipsets but they are not very popular and they are more expensive also. AMD folks just buy eithe VIA chipset or NF chipset MB's.

[Fas-ligand]

Yes, I might favor AMD over Intel, but I'm not above using Intel. I say choose a great motherboard that has what you want on it and get the processor brand that fits it.

...lots of opinions here :)

[ribitch]

I say buy an IBM 970

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by bachviet

AMD does make its own chipsets but they are not very popular and they are more expensive also. AMD folks just buy eithe VIA chipset or NF chipset MB's.

Ok, I should have stated that they DO make their own chipsets. However, I would hazard to guess that the majority of people, vast majority, used non-AMD chipsets.

AMD chips are less stable mostly due to AMD not being nearly as involved in the chipset manufacturing as Intel. This is their biggest downfall.


LK