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 vs. INTEL

Jun 9, 2005 7:33AM PDT

I am builing a new computer and would like to know which processor is better when concerning performance, noise, and heat.
I would also like any information you may have as to how I could upgrade to 2 AMD64's in the future. Does the motherboard need to have a socket for both?
Lastly, does anyone think that Longhorn will be better suited for either processor?

Thanks
pbollin

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
amd
Jun 9, 2005 7:40AM PDT

" performance, noise, and heat" these surely fit the amd cpus. performance, amd has a slight edge in everything, quiet, amd has cool and quiet, heat, pentium run around 50-60+ celcious, its like having a controlled fire in ur pc hehe

- Collapse -
r u upgrading to 2 amd processors or asking about dual cores
Jun 9, 2005 7:53AM PDT

has longhorn came out yet? how do u expect someone to answer ur question. by the time, longhorn comes out, you'll probably need to get a new computer anyway.

rite now dual cores from intel and amd r available. intel requires a different chipset while amd uses the same chipset for its dual core as in its single cores. so get a amd mobo. hopefully a nforce4 one. as long as its socket 939.

- Collapse -
I'd say Intel...
Jun 9, 2005 12:22PM PDT

I'd say get an Intel cpu. Back in the days, Intel would be the clear winner, as 80486 is far more stable than am486. Times has changed, but Intel is still the industry standard, although not by as much of a margin. AMD processors do more work per cycle, but Pentium has a faster cycle rate. Overall, the fastest Pentium is still a bit faster than the fastest AMD processor for most applications. And it's not true Pentium runs at a higher temperature, it's usually between 40 and 50 degrees C. Human body temperature is 37 degrees C, so it's not really that hot.

Also, most motherboards only support one. Motherboards that support both are probably much more expensive, although I really don't know. In any case, it's probably better to decide now and stick with one brand.

- Collapse -
RE:
Jun 9, 2005 1:01PM PDT

"Overall, the fastest Pentium is still a bit faster than the fastest AMD processor for most applications." Not true, the AMD beats the Pentium in everything. ONLY in certain applications involving heavy encoding or video editing, would the intel beat the amd. The AMD BEATS Intel at everything...

- Collapse -
Where did you get that idea?
Jun 9, 2005 1:35PM PDT

Intel has been the industry leading standard, it still is. I don't know where you got the idea AMD is faster... They don't show CPU clock for their processors because it's too low and would look bad. Instead, they call it "2700+" and such things, which is really misleading.

- Collapse -
yes their clock speed is lower
Jun 9, 2005 3:18PM PDT

however the amd makes up for it with its system bus up to 2000

- Collapse -
Re: 2700+
Jun 9, 2005 4:31PM PDT

It means its a 1.8 gig but, as fast, if not faster than Your Intel 2.7 gig. So, who has the better technology? Intel lost the lead a couple years ago at least.

- Collapse -
Where have you been?
Jun 9, 2005 4:36PM PDT

You're living in the past... AMD does have lower clock speed and name it 2700+,etc. But it seems to be working, as intel is now no longer focusing on clock speed, but name their processors 560, 660, 740, 820 etc... Check tomshardware.com for benchmarks. http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html
Roger

- Collapse -
also intel is getting junker
Jun 9, 2005 3:21PM PDT

intel's dual cores r junker compared to amd's go tomshardware.com

most computer "experts" would recommend amd and not go around recommending celeron

- Collapse -
Not from what I have observed over the years....
Jun 10, 2005 3:22AM PDT

It is most of the "Gamers" that recommend AMD 64 as test do show with most comparable Intel processors it is faster in most games.

- Collapse -
however i do agree with ur opinion on agp
Jun 9, 2005 3:22PM PDT

however, i also disagree as pci-e will dominate the gfx card market in the future so many users r preparin for dat and want to be able to upgrade in the future

- Collapse -
...
Jun 9, 2005 5:07PM PDT

Of course PCI Express will dominate the market, but not now, and definately not as soon as most people think...
As I said before, by the time AGP becomes the bottleneck, your computer will be obsolete anyway.

You should give Celeron more credit. According to that Benchmark, a 2.6 Ghz Celeron with decent DDR memory ends up above the supposedly faster 2.8Ghz P4 and most AMD processors. I've been running graphics heavy games like Half Life 2, Far Cry, Deus Ex 2 for quite a while on my 2.6Ghz Celeron now, and they worked flawlessly. Celeron costs far less, and performs just as well. I know this from experience.

Still, that benchmark is kinda fishy. The fastest AMD processor ranked 12th. All the top ones were Intels... I always knew Pentium cpus were faster, but the difference seemed far too big... o_O

- Collapse -
AMD vs. INTEL
Jun 10, 2005 3:13AM PDT

And CPU wars are on, again! Go Tom's hardware and take time to read all the reviews then decide.
In todays world P4s run HOT!
AMD64s run COOL.
Windows XP Pro 64bit was wirtten for the AMD 64 chip not the Intel chip. Intel had to make the P4 6xx compatable with AMD.
The dual core AMD chip fits in a single 939 socket.
AS for that longhorn thingie, WHO KNOWS!! MS keeps changing it by the minute. If your concerd about this then wait untill 2007 to get a new PC. Have fun, John

- Collapse -
Confession of a Die-Hard Intel Fan
Jun 10, 2005 4:31AM PDT

I'v ebeen a die-hard Intel fan since 1997 and just a month ago, I switched over to AMD. I feel I've been wasting much of my precious time over Intel. Not that its a poor processor, but becuz, AMD is so far the best. As for the heat and noise problems, anyone who's got a doubt and a little common sense better check out the heat sinks/fans of both, a box-packed Intel Pentium4 530 (3.0GHz) and an AMD 939 socket processor-in-a-box. Rest I leave it to his imagination. Secondly, Intel has been very fond of offering small increments to the clock speeds in its processors like 2.8GHz, 3.0GHz, 3.2GHz blah blah blah. Well, the fact is, that one doesn't notice even the slightest impact between them. Though pretty late, yet, Intel has now realized that increasing mere clock speed doesn't mean actual performance boost and thats why its switched over to processor model numbers too. The best part is, in the technological race, AMD is at par with Intel if not superior (which it is), but AMD users despite receiving latest tech advancement, dont get obsoleted so fast as Intel users. Why?? Well, on one hand buy an AMD socket 939 board and on the other hand, buy a board with Intel 915/925 Series chipsets. You dont have to buy another mobo for an advanced processor. But with Intel you feel like changing your PC or upgrading it after a year.
I never wanted to adopt AMD but since the day I have used one, I dont think I'll ever revert back to Intel.

- Collapse -
yah i agree
Jun 10, 2005 4:49AM PDT

i agree what you said because im an intel user still, but i am 100% confident that an any amd machine with socket 939 would nearly destroy any pentiums, celerons, you name it. i saw that tomshardware thing to and its pretty shocking that an older amd 2700 can outpace my new pentium 530. i dont deny it anymore. ~_~

konny

- Collapse -
That benchmark...
Jun 10, 2005 5:37AM PDT

I wouldn't trust that tomshardware thing. They tested a lot of cpu/ram/bus combinations...

According to many of these lists, Celeron 2.6 and 2.8 Ghz ranked much higher than most of the far more expensive Pentium and AMD chips. I use Celeron 2.6 Ghz, and know it's fast for the low price. But comeon, the rankings on that list just isn't realistic. I wouldn't trust that list too much. Besides, on majority of the benchmarks shown, The fastest Pentium chips took first place. In the few that AMD took first place, Intel isn't far behind. On some others, AMD isn't even in the first 10. This kinda negates your points, don't you think? That is, assuming that benchmark is accurate.

And what is with the idea that cpu clock doesn't matter? Just because it's not everything doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

- Collapse -
Re: AMD vs. INTEL
Jun 10, 2005 6:37AM PDT

If you are going to build right now, and since you didn't mention gaming, then in my opinion the best for the $ would be a Intel 820 or 830 dual core system that already has the 64-bit support. Why?....read up on what dual core can do to help while running several programs, etc..
In addition, games will be out before long to utilize dual core and 64-bit. In dual core the fps (frames per second) for gaming, there is not that much difference between AMD & Intel .... the hard core gamers do make a fuss, brag & beat their chest about the slight edge AMD makes, Happy


Newegg does have some Intel dual core processors available now.
The AMD dual core has been reportedly to be available around the end of October. However, I notice Monarch is taking orders and indicating a June 16th. The pricing for the AMD line up (dual-CPU without heatsink/fan) is much higher than the Intel lineup. Before dual core, one of the bragging points (besides high fps in gaming) of AMD fans was that it was cheaper in price than Intel. Seems to be a downside now.

Heat problems with any computer system can normally be controlled with fans. If it becomes a real problem water cooling can be employed... here is one for $149:

http://tinyurl.com/9jz7f

Also some reading...DIY water cooling 101 from Tom's Hardware:

http://www.tomshardware.com/howto/20050609/index.html

- Collapse -
About 64 bit applications...
Jun 10, 2005 6:44AM PDT

Right now, there are no 64 bit applications, and I don't think there will be in the near future. Think about it, they've been saying that 64 bit applications will come for a long time now. We're still not seeing any. It's the same as PCI Express. People always get excited over new toys. No one is saying they're not superior, but right now, there is just no need for such things. Just like AGP, 32 bit bus works fine, and at the same time compatible with everythin else. New technology, no matter how superior they are, won't be able to replace the old unless their benefits outwight the cost of adoption. It'll be a while before we see anything useful in 64 bit...

- Collapse -
What about Virtual Dub? I use it and it's in 64-bit mode.
Jun 10, 2005 6:47AM PDT

I also have a MySQL in 64-bit flavor.

-> Where are reading there are no 64-bit applications?

Bob

- Collapse -
Fine... -_-
Jun 10, 2005 7:02AM PDT

Still, there are no 64 bit only applications. The few that's aviliable in 64 bit now don't offer significant benefits anyway.

- Collapse -
Hmm, are you using 64-bit apps?
Jun 10, 2005 7:21AM PDT

I am, and I'm not going to give them up.

-> Please answer my original question.

Bob

- Collapse -
Re: 64-bit...
Jun 10, 2005 7:07AM PDT

I believe Mod Bob Proffitt has mentioned before that there are some 64-bit applications/programs out now and he has used some.

There is not a lot of applications currently available for 64-bit, but it will be the wave for the future and even games will be forthcoming with 64-bit and dual core applications, re Intels announcement:

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050308net.htm?iid=search&

Nothing wrong with AGP...is currently as good as PCI-Express...however, PCI Express x16 (double xCool offers an increased bandwidth of 4GB.

As always, when there is more bandwidth available, developers will find a way to put it to good use, driving the technology into the mainstream.
It may take a little time until this will really show in any applications, especially games, but
future 3D games and applications will continue to become more realistic and eventually will need more bandwidth.

It can be noted that the latest motherboards being produced are looking to the furure producing PCI-Express X-16, x1, and x4 slots. Also ATI & Nvidia see the future and have shifted to PCI-E, but realize there is an awful lot of current AGP boards out there and don't want to miss out on the $'s so are producing AGP versions of their PCI-E cards.

Something like finally Intel announced in February their shift to 64-bit (EM64T). The 5xx series Processors are being replaced with the 6xx series and 8xx (dual core) that contain EM64T.
Notice Dell, HP and some others are now producing computers with the 6xx Intel 64-bit processor and I would expect them to go full 64-bit as soon as they can deplete their inventory of 5xx non 64-bit computers.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) good post
Jun 10, 2005 8:23AM PDT