AMD vs Intel...Big difference?

From my experience, the harddrive speed seems to make a huge chunk of the difference. I have an old Intel machine that has 2.0ghz but a 7200rpm harddrive. Loads Windows XP in about 10 seconds flat.

My new laptop with a dual core AMD and a 5400rpm loads vista in about 10 days flat. :T

 

Da Da Da Da Da Da Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa just finished building the rig posted above (Post #5) and ready to run some serious stuff Implimented it with 4GB not 2 and 500Gb Western Dig HDD "SCHMOKIN'

 

In the future I will avoid AMD processors at all cost. I have a AMD Athlon 64 3500 + processor, and I´m not too impressed. The first annoying thing that I discovered was that I couldn´t play some old video games (FIFA 98/99).

Also, IMO it´s using too much CPU time for certain activities, like browsing and playing audio/video. And game play could be better. Btw, my latest gripe: at the moment, videos on YouTube freeze whenever I move my mouse. But I´m not sure if it´s fair to compare it with Intel Core 2 processors. Still, I believe Intel is better.

 

Edit: System complete and running, Improvised with 4GB RAM and 500GB WD HDD

 

I had no problems doing all these things with an Athlon 64 3000+, its definitely NOT the processor thats responsible for the problems you are facing.

I got my first AMD in 2005 and since then I've never had a need to look back at Intel processors ever again. For now, Intel Core 2 processors *are* better for the high end, but when it comes down to the value sector and performance-mainstream segments, you have great CPUs from both companies offering good bang for the buck and largely similar performance.

I recently upgraded my PC and I got an AMD again. The reason is: The cost of the processors itself may be competitive, but I have seen that some very good motherboards with some pretty good features are available cheaper for AMD processors than comparable ones for Intel processors. Thus the overall system cost is reduced.

In any case you cannot go wrong with either side.

 

I have used many versions of both processors and I will from my experience stay with AMD. But I have never had any major problems with Intel either, I just prefer the performance of AMD.

bigc

 

my first computer was an AMD athlonxp2600+.i was quite impressed with it.now i bought a new pc and again went for AMD.this time an AMD 5000x2 rock solid performance.i think AMD gives the best bang for the buck when the overall cost is taken and the performance is also great..

 

Hello,

I'm using two AMDs:

Athlon 3700+ 939 64-bit, Nvidia 6600GT 128MB
Dual Core 3800+ 64-bit, Nvidia 7600GT 256MB

Windows-wise, both run XP with 2GB RAM, little or no security apps and they fly. I can play even modern games quite well at serious resolution, heavy virtualization, p2p you name it. There's no need to overbuy. These two comps are 2.5 and 1.5 years old and can handle 70-80% of games today without the slightest problem and will hold well another 2 at least. As to other tasks, I prolly won't need anything else for another 3-4 years.

I think hard disk play an important game too - got WD 160, 200 and 250GB drives, they work quite well, J and K series. The 3700 single core seems to respond faster to simple tasks but the dual core performs better at 100% CPU crunching like video editing or virtualization.

Mrk

 

BigC,

When buying e.g.software in most all cases the company is refering to an Intel processor when writing about "system requirements'. How can you tell this software runs with an AMD ? Only by contacting the company/testing it out yourself ?

Can you elaborate on this ?

thanks

 

my first pc has a intel pentium 1.
second pc has a intel pentium 3
third pc has an amd 3200 socket 754 since it was better than the intel pentium 4's
current pc has intel quad core Q6600 since its the best price per proformance processer atm.
i never had a problem with my amd based pc.

 

Have two AMD machines and one Intel machine. Never had problems with either (not due to the processors anyway).

Currently, Intel offers the most bang for the buck and AMD has been languishing as of late. So my new computer is an Intel Q6600. It runs great, overclocks easily, etc.

 

I recently bought a new box. the AMD seems to work a little more silently as BigC said. It is really hard for me to tell much as there is age and so much difference in actual hardware specs. For me it is like comparing watermelons to grapefruit.

 

Mercurie,the CPU itself is noiseless,it may have been the fan.

Intel have a clear advantage at the moment for innovation,performance and value,especially for the enthusiast who for example,wants to extract maximum performance by overclocking.
There are also no reliability problems.

But this doesnt mean that AMD is lacking at all for the average user,who is satisfied with his current set up.

Anyone who has an old setup really should try a dual core Intel CPU to see the vast performance improvement.

 

I am sorry. I was not clear, yes you are correct electronics really make no noise. I was refering to my Emachine box that contains the AMD chip. I was indeed thinking in terms of the fan cooling the chip and so fourth...it just hums a little bit. When I move the mouse from standby the sound coming from the box is like a fan revving up and then back to normal something I am not really use to. Any way it just hums and the longer it runs the lower the hum gets until it levels out to a low hum. Really it is an improvement from my older machines in the noise area.

I have a Intel dual core on my office machine it is indeed faster, but not a tremendous amount faster other factors would likely influence my purchase decision more.

 

For some reason the laptop battery drains in 2 hours with a 12 cell battery! With regular internet browsing.

 

Dont think thats so unusual-our laptop with Intel from memory has similar consumption-dont recognise the 12 cell bit.

 

Just got off with HP support which was great service. They said to calibrate which i will try later. If anyone else wants to try the link is:
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/...7650&cc=us&dlc=en&lc=en&jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN

 

@ Firecat,

So you´re saying that it must be some other component that´s causing these problems? You mean the motherboard, or videocard? Of course, in general my CPU seems to function OK, but these things are a bit annoying to me. Also, at work, my Intel CPU seems to be using a whole lot less cpu time for the same activities, but then again, perhaps the newest AMD processors do too.

 

To be honest I never saw anything more than a 15% CPU load while playing ANY video on that 3000+ processor. At the same time, I *was* using a GeForce 6800 GT graphics card which might have offloaded the CPU a lot in such tasks.

As far as FIFA 99 goes, it requires only MMX and possibly SSE, instruction sets supported by these AMD processors. So it should run without any problems. And game play on AMD Athlon 64 3000+ was actually better than the Intel Pentium 4 processors that was the main competition at the time I got it.

As far as I am concerned, I have never found any reason to say AMD sucks; their main strength has always been the price-to-performance ratio; which they still excel at arguably. The current situation is similar to the Athlon XP vs. Pentium 4 battle; where both companies had decent products at extremely competitive prices (Athlon was cheaper, Pentium was better).

Youtube videos causing the mouse to freeze is a problem I never faced with that config.

 

I agree with Firecat. There is nothing wrong with AMDs. I 've had 5 AMD CPUs, never had problems. As a matter of fact, Athlon XP was smoking his Intel counterparts and same goes for the first gen 64bit AMD Cpus compared to their contemporary Intels (plus in Intel Prescott cores, if i well remember, you could fry eggs, because they were so energy hungy, that overheat was a common issue).

I would seek the freezing in youtube on software issues. Not the CPU.

 

I have absolutly idea what you are talking about "system requirments"All of the software I use will work with either An Intel or AMD. I think AMD is better with graphics and games with hi-def type graphics.

And as far as elaborating, The programs I use daily and some just on occasion run better for me with AMD than an Intel processor. And in my personal experiences AMD runs cooler on average. But I am not saying I think Intel is no good, to the contrary. Intel makes an excellent product.

 

This probably used to be the case during the Intel Pentium days,but not currently with the Intel dual core range,which run very cool.

 

No, my equiptment is not that old. I was refering to the newer versions. I do realize that the dual and quad core precessors are going to run warmer simply because of their nature. But in my experience as I stated AMD runs cooler for me. If Intel runs cooler or better for you that's great. If I see a difference in future versions I would have no compunctions with switching brands. I am not loyal soley to a brand name. I am loyal to performance by which ever works the best for me.

 

bigc,the only thing that matters is that everything is running well for you
Good news!

 

Oh I fully agree. as long as anyone has a system that is working well for them and not giving problems. What more could we ask for.