30 replies to this topic

[Afrika Korps]

Hello....

Here is the question for my future rig.

Which CPU is better for Gaming and Photoshop-style programs?

(Sckt775)Intel® Pentium® 4 640 CPU w/HT Technology 3.2GHZ 800FSB 2MB Cache, 64 Bit

or...

(939-pin) AMD ATHLON64 3200+ CPU w/ HyperTransport Technology

I'm building from Cyber Power INC.(Where Limp got his)

I don't fully undersand some of the differences between the two chips. The latter runs at only 2.2 GHz, but Intel is running at 3.2 GHz. I know that AMD is more inclined to die-hard PC gamers... But which would better fulfill my needs?

I haven't decided on the rest of the PC yet.

[BombeBomb]

Toss your pentium junk out the window there so far behind amd in development its no contest, get an amd, you might want to get a 3500+ tho, btw I never knew intel made 64bit chips?

[@n@rchist]

Bomb you havent done your research. It is suggested that AMD's are better. BUT...There isnt a major difference. I know akooma would say that intels are better, and If I went to a lan party 98% of them would have AMD's and say they are better. It mostly depends on the graphics cards for gaming and photostuff. For running multiple processes Hyperthreading helps. But for gaming it doesnt do shit. I say wait for the uber geeks to post there knowledge.

[Ster]

Gaming: AMD
Photoshop crap: Intel

g'luck making a decision

[DeadlyDon]

Gaming: AMD
Servers: Intel
Performance per dollar: AMD
Overheating: AMD

My last Intel chip was a Pentium MMX 166Mhz. I've had several AMD's since then and haven't had any real problems. I have had to make sure I have a good CPU fan. Unless things drastically change my next PCU will also be an AMD. If you really want to make the decision based on facts you need to visit sites like www.tomshardware.com.

[adinar]

Just wanted to add a few points to what has already been said so far & answer your questions.

The main difference between the AMD chips & Intel chips having different clockspeeds (i.e. the AMD is 2.2GHz, and the Intel is at 3.2GHz) is exactly that. They do have different clockspeeds. Many years ago, they determined that AMD chips at one clockspeed performed just as good as Intel chips at a faster clockspeed. That's why they switched over to the 3000+, 3200+, etc ratings. So the AMD 3200+ (3200+ = "3.2GHz)" even though clocked at 2.2GHz performs comparable to the Intel 3.2GHz.

The reason why the majority of people choose AMD over Intel for gaming is because for the same performance, the AMD chips cost less. For your example, the AMD 3200+ costs $190, while the Intel 3.2GHZ costs $230 right now. That's a difference of $40 (over 20% more $$$). Generally people on a budget don't want to pay 20% more $$$ for nearly the same performance. Thus they choose AMD.

As far as heating issues go, unless you're going to be overclocking, getting the retail version of each (which comes with a retail heatsink/fan) & a case with good fans should be just fine.

Good luck to yA!

[USHA]

AMD, thats all that needs to be said.

[BombeBomb]

Get a athlon 64, there better lol,

[DarkFall]

AMD and INTEL have different numbers of instructions per cycle, or something along those lines. That accounts for AMD having lower clockspeeds with comparable work being done. INTEL went for higher speeds with lower instructions for one main reason, people are inherently stupid and INTEL knew that a faster sounding CPU would impress and awe the idiots with no real computer knowledge, parents... Same thing happened back when AMIGA was going head to head with IBM. I had a 7.14MHZ processor that ran rings around my cousin's 8086 based 33MHZ machine, because my system used multiple processors to get more done. IBM's open door policy was what doomed the idiots running AMIGA, who kept everything closed door for years.

Basically it's 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. Choose a processor, then a motherboard and then a video card, making sure you are buying what the public is moving towards, in that regard. The new trend in video cards is away from AGP and towards PCI-Express, I believe. Make sure your periferals don't have a lot of conflicts with any one of your main 3 pieces(CPU, MB amd VC). It's all downhill from there...

MSI is a good company to deal with and they have deals with both AMD and INTEL on motherboards, as well as Nvidia and ATI on video cards... Just my opinion...

[Frags]

amd runs alot cooler so you wont worry much about overheats

[ChRiS_52]

My input is that..in order to get an Intel 64 bit to run as fast as an AMD 64 bit..you going to have to spend a bit...lol ( i should be a poet ).

So the AMD is going to give you the same performence no better...no worse...only for cheaper money. And im not sure if your into Over Clocking...but my experience has shown me that AMD's handel better and are more stable when Over Clocking

And thats what I have to say bout that...

[BombeBomb]

My input is that..in order to get an Intel 64 bit to run as fast as an AMD 64 bit..you going to have to spend a bit...lol ( i should be a poet ).

So the AMD is going to give you the same performence no better...no worse...only for cheaper money. And im not sure if your into Over Clocking...but my experience has shown me that AMD's handel better and are more stable when Over Clocking

And thats what I have to say bout that...

How do you "overclock" your cpu, I keep hearing about it.

[ChRiS_52]

Its not somthing that can be explained over the forums..its very risky if you do not kno what you are doing and every computer is different.

But basicaly..OCing is taking a 2.2ghz and making it 2.4ghz by making adjustments in the MOBO...or BIOS..its sumthing that you need sufficiant heatsinks for...(not the one that came with your CPU) and alot of skill set.

My suggestion..read up on it online

[Wasabi®]

I say both are fine, as long as you don't get the feared Pentium D. Its noise problems were unbearable to me, especially in the summer... If you really want the best out of the CPU, stick to Ster's advice.

Also, BombeBomb, which fan in your PC is it that's running at 5400rpm? Depending on which fan it is, it might be way too fast.

[adinar]

Bomb - like Chris52 said, overclocking is essentially pushing your processor FASTER than it was designed to do. Which basically means risking adding instability to your system for a small trade-off in performance increase. It's usually done by those people who are trying to eke every ounce of "horsepower" out of their system. But unless you know *exactly* what you're doing, you risk a HIGH chance of damaging your motherboard & processor.

Frankly, that's not a $250+ risk I'm wanting to take just to get a few % increase in performance that I may never see the difference in anyway.

When you overclock a processor, you make it run hotter which means the retail heatsink/fan that came with it isn't sufficient. Removing heat from a processor is more than just "how fast your CPU fan spins". It also depends on what kind of heatsink you have. Different heatsinks can remove differing amounts of heat depending on how they are designed, what they are made out of, etc.

[Chris_Redfield]

Do NOT overclock your PC is you dont know what youre doing. This will result in frying your processor and if s*** really hits the fan, say bye bye to your PC. Look around PC forums, get info on your PC and watch out for the regular PC limit. I have an overclocking master at my home (my bro) who has done a LOT of reserach on Intels and AMDs and overclocking on that matter.

I have a P4 3.0 GHz clocked to 3.3 using stock cooling. The PC teperature is very low becuase the stock cooler does wonders BUT it may not do so for you.

Heres what Ive learned from my bro.

1. Ask yourself why almost ALL of the servers use Intel technology and why the ones who use AMDs are considered idiots?

2. Do you want reliability, flexibility, functionality or pure gaming machine?

If you got the first question and got the hint and if you got the 3rd question and iots hint, we shall move on.

AMD is purely for gaming purposes, it was designed fro gaming. My bro told me that it has very good cooperation with the other parts (like consoles have, ask yourself why PS2 continues to whoop PCs butt)
BUT
I totally disagree with the overheating issue. The probablity of frying an AMD compared to Intel is MUCH, MUCH higher. Not that AMD has a high probabliy of overheating, its the fact that Intel has a very LOW probablity of overheating. PLUS, it has all these nice extra features for protecting the PCU. I remember a test when AMDs and P4s coolers were taken off and the PCs were turned on. AMD fried while P4 turned itsself off and they used it later again.

P4 whoops AMDs *** TOTALLY when it comes to video-work, photoshopping and other stuff relating to these kind of issues.

This is what I remember.

Anyway, to finally stress things out.

If you want a fully reliable, functional and mulypurpose PCU WITH an option for some hardcore gaming. Go for Intel. The price difference isnt that great.

If youw ant to join the masses of gaming and have a PC for gaming... AMD is the choice to go.

The configuration of your PC and MOST IMPORTANT, the cooperation between parts (choose as if youre building a console, make your parts working with each other draining maximim firepower from each other. So selecting proper gear for your PCU is upmost important. Proper motherboard, proper memory, proper video card. If youve got it all bullzeyed, then congrats.)

Whoever wants to argue with me about the functionality of AMDs in photoshop and vide-work, do so, but I had an expert building the PC for a club for video-works and he chose P4, with a gig of RAM, 256 card (configured for 2D work). We had all the funds we needed and he chose P4. Think about it , and heck does the machine play games aswell.

[DarkLightning]

True. Overclocking is good if you have a mid or low end processor and want to suck all the juice out of it before throwing it into the trash can. But if you have a Athlon 64 3200+ or better, there's no point in ocing it. It's already one of the best processors out there, and beats most Pentiums quite easily. I understand that it can be tempting to oc, but in the long run, your processor will give up on you faster than those which aren't oced. Of course, if you overclock it without increasng the voltage, and are able to achieve decent speeds, then there's nothing like it. No voltage increase = no overheating = negligible processor damage in the long run. That's what I do on my system.

As for the comparison between P4s and AMDs, I would say P4s suck for home use. AMD excels Intel in every SOHO application. P4s are good only at professional applications involving stuff like video editing, business applications etc. The only reason they maintain such a huge presence in the desktop market is because of the millions of dollars they spend on marketing.

I totally disagree with the overheating issue. The probablity of frying an AMD compared to Intel is MUCH, MUCH higher. Not that AMD has a high probabliy of overheating, its the fact that Intel has a very LOW probablity of overheating. PLUS, it has all these nice extra features for protecting the PCU. I remember a test when AMDs and P4s coolers were taken off and the PCs were turned on. AMD fried while P4 turned itsself off and they used it later again.

That comparison may have been valid for older AMDs, but it is a FACT that the Prescott core P4s draw ridiculously high amounts of power to achieve the higher clock speeds than the Athlon 64. In fact, if you read some reviews of the P4 3.8 GHz processor, you'll find that they faced immense difficulties in getting it to work at that clock speed. And this, inspite of that fact that an Athlon FX 57 easily beats a P4 3.8 GHZ processor and has no heating issues whatsoever.

And those in doubt about the performance of AMDs, here is a very good comparison:

http://www23.tomshar...del2=33&chart=4

Just for comparison, my Athlon 2500+ at stock speeds (1.83 GHz) beats the P4 2.4 GHz in 27 out of the 30 benchmarks.

[GrimReaper]

As for overclocking, never been a fan. Usually people have more success with overclocking with a p4 thank with an AMD. As far as efficency and cost effectiveness, AMD is far superior. You asked the question why most servers use P4s? its not because they are better, they are just more well known. Huge companys like Dell and Gateway don't distrubute AMD, not a lot of companies use custom built systems. This is why more servers use pentiums. It is not because of they are better, its just pure numbers. Dell can get the volume it needs for Intel, but not from AMD. AMD is kinda like linux, its way better than Windows. But everyone is used to Windows (or Pentium). Also people are idiots, they would rather see the high clock speed, than the actually processing power. Pound for Pound, AMD is better. No question about it. (cheaper too)

[Soldaten]

For the love of god Chris.. consult a dictionary or have your 'expert' brother spellcheck your posts

Fyi on the server question.. Grim is right, it has more to do with marketability and how Intel strong arms the market.. How do I know this? Well I don't have an expert brother or anything but I was an Intel employee for over 10 years so I am pretty sure I have some first hand insight on this

There are a lot of other issues but I don't want this post to turn into a book.

-S

[Chris_Redfield]

For the love of god Chris.. consult a dictionary or have your 'expert' brother spellcheck your posts

Fyi on the server question.. Grim is right, it has more to do with marketability and how Intel strong arms the market.. How do I know this? Well I don't have an expert brother or anything but I was an Intel employee for over 10 years so I am pretty sure I have some first hand insight on this

There are a lot of other issues but I don't want this post to turn into a book.

-S

Holy christ! It doesnt happen everyday that people pick on my English. Thank god my first language isnt English, it isnt even second, its actually third. NEVER, NEVER pick on peoples grammar on the internet.