Intel or AMD? a home-user's choice

[rupert86]

I'm new here (2nd post ). I'm newbie in hardware enthusiasm and work on a PC repair store. I've worked on some >5000 configs.

Now everybody knows the problems abt Prescott etc. But people really want to fall in the hole. They want Intel, even if they have to die for it.

Now my opinion is: everybody has ups & downs. Intel's been a great company (the P6 archit & impelemntation of SSE, for e.g), but now there are problems. AMD has been a bad company, but the last three years saw good products. Maybe in some time Intel would come to top, but its not now.

And please for those non-respectable people, who keep saying Intel/AMD is good and everything else is crap, go and voice your opinion somewhere else. I'm starting a productive session, not a biased one.

________________________________________________

;config.tXt

;27.06.2004

;21:05 PST

Graphic Card: Matrox Millenium G450 DualHead (32 MB DDR)

Model #: G45FMDHA32DB

Sr #: PBG19967

Driver version: 6.83.017 in Win98, 5.92.006 in WinXP

PD version: 6.83.017 in Win98, 6.92.004 in WinXP

VT version: N/A

MGA Bios version: 1.4.004

Hardware rev.: 133

CPU: AMD Athlon 600 MHz (AMD K7600MTR51B) @687MHz (FSB114)

Chipset: VIA Apollo KX133 (VT8731 + 82C686A)

Motherboard: SL-77KV

Motherboard Bios: L5

PCB ver: M5

Motherboard chipset patches: AGP GART 1.80a from VIA Hyperion 4.51v

RAM: 1x Kingston 256MB KVR133X64C3/256 (@148MHz)

OS: Windows 4.10.2222A & Windows XP 5.1.2600.1106 SP1a

Desktop resolution and color depth: 1024x768, 32bpp

DirectX version: DX9.0b, 4.09.0000.0902 in Win98, Win2000

Hard Drive: Seagate Baraccuda 7200.7, ST380011A; firmware v3.06

SCSI card type: NIL

Sound card and driver version: Integrated VIA AC'97, drv v5.40a in Win98/WinXP

Hardware rev.: 032

Monitor brand: Philips 105S2

CD-ROM Drive (make/model): Asus S520/A, firmware rev. 2.0L

Network card: NIL

Fax MODEM: Amigo AMI-2019E, (also called AM HW 3056) (PCI slot 3 of 5)

Driver Version: 3.37

Hardware revision: 001

IRQ settings and other devices:

-----------------------

Ahsan Zaheer Shaikh

Student

H.S.C.-II

Adamjee Govt. Science College,

Karachi.

[mutahir]

Hello rupert,

looking at what you wrote that you have worked on over 5000 configs, would you like to suggest me a motherboard,

i want to build a machine which have an ASUS board?

Which board to use? from ASUS (budget is not a problem at moment)

secondly, would you prefer Intel processor or AMD?

does AMD has 800mhz fsb as well??

and if you can explain in brief which AMD processor means what like operton , athlon etc.

thanks and regards

Mutahir

[GeneralMandible]

The first machine I built was a Cyrix 166. It worked great for a year or two. Then I built an AMD K6-2 350 machine that I still use as a test machine. Currently, I have an AMD Athlon XP 2600. Personally, I don't see a reason to buy an Intel Pentium. I've built several machines for friends and use AMD chips. No problems. They are much cheaper and I feel they perform better.

[MadGutts]

I have used all sorts of processor from cyrix, amd and intel.

From over 15 years of experience the AMD chips are far easier and better to setup and run. I have never had a problem with an AMD chip - even when overclocking them! Intel are fine for desktop workstations, but for games and audio and video apps, AMD processors are far better. Although intel seem to be getting better...

I Have just ordered the new AMD 64bit processor.. Hope this lives up to there reputation!

So i can highly recomend AMD !

[Papa Smurf]

I would also go with the AMD. More value for the money spent

[TomcaT]

I have had both AMD and Intel. I have been happy with both and they performed as I wanted during the time. To me the big differences is the price, AMD is always cheaper and is very good value for money.

The downside of AMD IMHO is they get hot and need more cooling fans hence more noise, although I don't have much experience of the higher end Intels except in my laptop which is always hot!

[rupert86]

Just back after 24hrs, but no time to RE:. Guess I'll be back in abt 7 hrs. So plz wait.

[Alanoll]

what's wrong with the Prescott? I haven't seen anything....links anyone?

[newdles]

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticl...748&articID=190

There isn't anything "wrong" with a prescott. Some people have great luck with them if they actually know what they're doing.

[rupert86]

Mr Mutahir,

My name's Ahsan, rupert86 is the ID. Even if bugdet is not a problem, I myself like to make a cost-performance ratio.

I'd recommend an AMD. Its the best cost-performance ratio. An AMD Athlon XP 2500+ w/ Asus A7N8XE-Deluxe. I don't know if you're an overclocker or not, but whenever you feel like tired of your system, just push the FSB to 200, from 166; great, you've got a 3200+. Usually Asus' boards are expensive due to all that bundled software. You may get a nicer deal at somebody else, (like Soltek SL-75FRN2-L) of course if you do not need free software (like me, I know I'd have to travel at least 3000km for a legit CD).

If the budget is no real problem, you can opt for the AMD Athlon 64 3500+ for the socket 939 & Asus A8V Deluxe. Personally I think 64 bits is really no use today (for gaming etc.) except in the case that you want a Linux server. The best time to buy a 64 bits CPU would be around Feb '05, to get a Win64 OS, and PCI-Express.

After all the years of repititive Win98/ME/2k/XP installation, I've come to one conclusion: MHz is to fool you. There are thousands of factors determining anything's performance, and MHz is not surely the best one. My advice: Don't go over the FSB thingy. Usually more the MHz, greater the chance of data corruption, and consequently that of process repitition.

Sorry but info abt Athlon/Opteron etc would make it really very long.

To prefer AMD has more reasons: Intel needs HT in order to achieve maximum performance, which means lack of support for the extremely popular OSes like Win98/ME. Simplify it man, simplify! The next is that everybody is aware that Intel's own chipsets are best for their CPUs. And due to that Intel Advanced Hub Architechture bottleneck, Intel's chipsets (e.g: 865G) takes more than thrice the time for installation than an AMD based system (e.g: even the old KM400).

Also, for the Tomcat, that AMD Thunderbirds & Palominos indeed get very hot, but Thoroughbreds and Bartons are actually cooler than their Intel counterparts.

Hey Alanoll, Intel themselves have released a 31 page .PDF at http://www.intel.com/design/pentium4/specupdt/30235203.pDf about the problems in Prescott. I have it but even zipped makes it 250k, so I can't post it here. Also, tomshardware.com says that the Pentium 4 560 (3.6 GHz) continuously approaches its 72.8 degrees C limits and crashes up. That's with the bundled cooler. Who knew Intel owuld go like that?? Since I myself use socket 370 coolers on socket 462's due to their superior performance and unfailing fans. Anyway, Intel is doomed for know, we hope it gets better.

Just back for wditing: I myself am waiting for the Socket A Sempron, since it has SSE2 support, and is altogether a revamped core, and possibly unlocked multipliers.

[Dustinwmew]

You said that you wanted a Pont of view that was not "saying Intel/AMD is good and everything else is crap"?

Have you looked at black vipers Rant on Amd vs intel?

http://www.blackviper.com/TheRant/amd_vs_intel_2.htm

I personly go for AMD. They use a lot of power, but cost less for what you get.

[rupert86]

Now the tables are turned. AMD uses less power than Intel (this position is since Thoroughbred).