Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

AMD or Intel

Mar 28, 2004 4:17PM PST

Hi Everyone
I am planning for a new system which would be used for 3D animation,video editing and audio editing and for some gaming.So should I go for a AMD system or Intel system? The choices I have are AMD AthlonXP 3200+ or Intel P4 3.2Ghz.If I go for AMD it will save me some money which I can spend on a high Performance AGP Card like "Herculis 3D Prophet ATI Radeon 9800XT 256MB".But some are of the opinion that when it comes to video and audio editing AMD sucks.Is this correct?
I know that in case of AMD you have to take the cooling arrangements seriously(not that you neglect the Intel CPU),like extra fans, better heat sink arrangement.So what do you guys suggest.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:AMD or Intel
Mar 28, 2004 9:37PM PST

Frankly, I would not over-invest in 32-bit today. Delay if you can for 64-bit or make your choice and do so with the knowledge you had to do what you did.

I don't think either make CPU has the issue you noted, but the 32-bit AMD's are rather picky on cooling and power. It stresses new system builders since they may pick out a just big enough power supply.

http://www.tomshardware.com has benchmarks to compare, but all in all, I'd catch the next wave.

Bob

- Collapse -
Re:Re:AMD or Intel
Mar 29, 2004 5:35PM PST

Hi Bob
Thanks for your suggestions.At this point of time it is logical to go with 64 bit technology.I think I will go with AMD 64 which suports 32bit as well as 64bit.

- Collapse -
I was a little unclear.
Mar 29, 2004 6:22PM PST

That is, a system "which suports 32bit as well as 64bit."

You'll see plenty of debate/tussle and outright fights over this one, but having lived from the 8-bit (Apple/Atari/Commodore) to 16-bit (IBM/Compaq) and onto 32-bit (PC/Mac). Plus seeing the SUN computer market flip from 20/80 to 80/20 in favor of 64-bit in just 9 months the history of these changes point to a rather quick conversion.

- Collapse -
In the 32 bit Processor world the Intel
Mar 30, 2004 4:38AM PST

design features and considerations for temperature throttling/shutdown and installation safety re the HSF [heat spreader that serves also to protect the chip]are far superior to AMD's.

Thankfully, AMD has incorporated these features in their 64 bit CPU's. The 64 bit AMD, while not cheap is also an excellent CPU for 32 bit software

- Collapse -
Intel is over priced
Mar 30, 2004 12:42PM PST

I've always used AMD. The cooling debate is crap. I strapped a $10 Coolermaster HSF on my 2400+ and all is well. Granted, the "stock" HSF for the intels are superior (rather large) but that is it as far as advantage goes.

- Collapse -
I agree with you, but
Mar 30, 2004 5:52PM PST

Hi Tom
I totally agree with you that Inel CPUs are overpriced.In my country,the price of a P4 2.4GHz is nearly double the price of an AMD 2400+.Also the motherboards for AMDs are also much cheaper.

- Collapse -
Re:I agree with you, but
Mar 31, 2004 2:18AM PST

Lets not forget the old addage "You get what you pay for". The cost of my fried AMD and replacement was considerably more than the cost of an Intel.

There are always cheaper alternatives to everything. If you are a builder and are prepared to cope with any limitations or product specific issues, go for the least expensive. There are adequate benchmarks available to ascertain performance. I've found that most applications are I/O intensive rather than CPU intensive. Upgrading to a better/faster disk, CD or graphics card seems to always provide more umph than a faster CPU to me.

- Collapse -
A little light reading. . .
Mar 30, 2004 11:45AM PST