AMD or INTEL Processor?

[b@sh_n3rd]

Hi, I'm not exactly sure if this should go into this section of the forum but since it seems (or seemed) appropriate, I did.

I'm fond of assembling computer systems for various tasks. These may include usual tasks such as, internet browsing, chatting, playing multimedia and so on. I might also play a few games, some, of which aren't that demanding in system resources and some that are quite demanding.

Well, my question is, if I am to build a computer, would AMD or INTEL be better for one or more of the above mentioned tasks? And/Or, which of these two manufacturers are better in comparison to overall performance?

I've been trying to sort this out for some time now. Though I favor INTEL more, I currently seem to get attracted towards AMD. The OS used for the system is irrelevant to this topic. Thanks for any suggestions/replies.

[crl0901]

I've been a huge fan of Intel processors since they came out with the Conroe series of cores. Everything they've put out since then has been great.

[Twitch6000]

i like both AMd and Intel for processors,but I have noticed AMd seems to need more cooling then Intel.

However it also seems AMD does more of a better job aswell.

Now intel on the other hand is nice and quiet and does a great job. Not to mention doesn't need as much cooling.

This is all from my experience though.

[MasterNetra]

i like both AMd and Intel for processors,but I have noticed AMd seems to need for cooling then Intel.

However it also seems AMD does more of a better job aswell.

Now intel on the other hand is nice and quiet and does a great job. Not to mention doesn't need as much cooling.

This is all from my experience though.

I think you got that backwards. Amd usually needs less cooling.

[Mehall]

AMD tends to be better value for money.

Most of my computers are AMD, but I have an old P3 (and an even older Cyrix, though that's outside the realm of this thread, ofc.)

But yeah, AMD tend to be better value for money, and while they tend to run hotter, the stock cooling is often better.

if you have music on, you shouldn't hear the fans anyway, unless the music is ultra-quiet.

[jbrown96]

You won't have problems with either. The new Phenom IIs (AMD) have, from what I've read, the same performance as non-core i7 Intel systems.

I would recommend AMD. The performance is basically identical to most Intel offerings, and they are quite a bit cheaper. Don't look at core-i7 systems; they are too expensive for what you want to do.

AMD is also committed to using the AM2 and AM3 motherboard sockets, so you would be safer in the future because you should be able to upgrade a processor more easily.

Since you mentioned media viewing, don't be tempted with AMD's integrated video if you are going to use Linux. The video drivers are awful in Linux. Go with a Nvidia card.

[SunnyRabbiera]

AMD tends to be better value for money.

Most of my computers are AMD, but I have an old P3 (and an even older Cyrix, though that's outside the realm of this thread, ofc.)

But yeah, AMD tend to be better value for money, and while they tend to run hotter, the stock cooling is often better.

if you have music on, you shouldn't hear the fans anyway, unless the music is ultra-quiet.

Yes but since the P3 Intel has improved, the dual cores kick butt.

[Mehall]

Yes but since the P3 Intel has improved, the dual cores kick butt.

I am aware, but even Dual-core, AMD is often better bang for your <insert currency here>

My laptop is a dual-core AMD.

My dad has a P4 (with HT, so it's a strong P4, even if it is pre-64bit single-core CPU's)

I'm not going to say Intel suck or anything, they often make more powerful CPU's than AMD, but you pay a LOT for what I generally perceive to be little benefit.

Of course, my opinion may be skewed given I spent the day installing Debian on a 486 era machine :popcorn:

[b@sh_n3rd]

Wow, thanks guys...I got replies by the time I could even proof read my post! :D

I think you got that backwards. Amd usually needs less cooling.
Is that so? I thought the same as Twitch 6000.

But yeah, AMD tend to be better value for money, and while they tend to run hotter, the stock cooling is often better. I've heard of this but it's good news about cooling which is one property I was worried about.

if you have music on, you shouldn't hear the fans anyway, unless the music is ultra-quiet.
hehe, that's a good one, but then I agree, I play music regularly and unless it's on headphones, the song is heard around the household :D. I use a system with a Pentium IV processor [Northwood] and I've added 2 additional fans from some old systems in an unofficial method. These make and awful racket and I don't mind it now coz I've got used to it.

AMD is also committed to using the AM2 and AM3 motherboard sockets, so you would be safer in the future because you should be able to upgrade a processor more easily.
This is good news. One thing just crossed my mind with this, If i'm using AMD, what's the best mainboard to buy?

Since you mentioned media viewing, don't be tempted with AMD's integrated video if you are going to use Linux. The video drivers are awful in Linux. Go with a Nvidia card.
Well, I like ATI, how is ATI with linux? Which is better?

I own 7 Intel PC's btw so AMD is something I haven't messed around with. That's why all the Q's :D. It IS cheaper than INTEL though right? Thanks.

[Mehall]

ATI is horrid in Linux, if I'm honest, whereas the nVidia proprietary drivers are getting to be almost as good as the Windows ones.

And yes, AMD are generally cheaper, like for like. Also: AM2+ and AM3 MoBo's are a LOT cheaper than an i7 MoBo. (with i7, you pay as much for the Mobo as you do for the processor.)

[LowSky]

ATi has been much better in Linux than it has been. I have actually seen more Nvidia problems as of late on the absolute beginners forum.

Currently have a Phenom x4 and it runs like a champ. and it much cheaper than anything Intel is offering around the same perfomance.

I dont mind Intel, heck I just got a netbook with the Atom in it, and it runs pretty good, but AMD has been a favorite since I was 18 when I built my first PC I used a AMD Athlon (Barton Core) tha tthing was fast er than anything else on the market at the time, after that I got a AMD Athlone (San Diego core) 3700+ and now just got a Phenom 9950 for the last few months I cant find anything that it cant run.

Side note, Almost any processor built today will be fast enough to run anything out there for the next 5 years easily. The biggest slow downs on PCs are the hard drives.

[Pasdar]

AMD all the way, all my AMD PCs and Laptops rock. AMD rules Intel at the same price, it runs circles around intel.

[rJ~]

If you want cheap I'd take a look at AMD's 7750 or 7850. It's a dual core based on AMD's Phenom I cores and should run most stuff fine.

A step up in price you find Intel Core 2 Duo E8400-E8600 and AMD PhenomII X3 720. Dual core and triple core respectively. If you run stuff that can take advantage of the third core, or run lots of programs in the background while gaming, then go with the X3 720. If you enjoy overclocking I think the edge goes to the E8x00.

For cheap quad cores I'd go with AMD's PhenomII, at least from the prices I've seen they're cheaper than Intel CPUs of equivalent power. Anything above the PhenomII you might as well pay the little extra for an i7.

Personally I'd go with either a PhenomII X3 or X4. They seem like a decent mix of being able to run todays games and any upcoming stuff that might support more than 2 cores, without breaking the bank.

[Skripka]

If you want cheap I'd take a look at AMD's 7750 or 7850. It's a dual core based on AMD's Phenom I cores and should run most stuff fine.

A step up in price you find Intel Core 2 Duo E8400-E8600 and AMD PhenomII X3 720. Dual core and triple core respectively. If you run stuff that can take advantage of the third core, or run lots of programs in the background while gaming, then go with the X3 720. If you enjoy overclocking I think the edge goes to the E8x00.

For cheap quad cores I'd go with AMD's PhenomII, at least from the prices I've seen they're cheaper than Intel CPUs of equivalent power. Anything above the PhenomII you might as well pay the little extra for an i7.

Personally I'd go with either a PhenomII X3 or X4. They seem like a decent mix of being able to run todays games and any upcoming stuff that might support more than 2 cores, without breaking the bank.

If you're lucky like me...


You can even turn a PhenomII 720 3 core into a 4 core with a simple BIOS setting....hurray for the ultra cheap AMD quad core :)

[rJ~]

If you're lucky like me...


You can even turn a PhenomII 720 3 core into a 4 core with a simple BIOS setting....hurray for the ultra cheap AMD quad core :)

True, but you're then limited to running old or modified BIOS versions since it's supposed to be disabled in newer versions. Irrelevant if everything works with the old version of course.

Either way I wouldn't base a purchase decision on a random chance at unlocking the fourth core, which was likely disabled for a good reason in the first place.

[Skripka]

Either way I wouldn't base a purchase decision on a random chance at unlocking the fourth core, which was likely disabled for a good reason in the first place.

Fair enough. I will say my setup was purchased new a month ago (BIOS from January)...and actually, my PhenomII 720 is MORE stable at higher overclockings as a quad core than it is as a 3 core-or it can also run cooler at stock take your pick. ~3.7gHz quad core with motherboard for $200 (shipping included), eat them apples Intel....certain BioStar motherboards are known to allow this, as are CPUs from certain batches-at least before AMD said they were clamping down on it.

I have yet to see ANY viable explanation as to why 3 core AMD chips exist with a disabled 4th core.

[ssam]

Well, I like ATI, how is ATI with linux? Which is better?


ATI have released lots of specs and documentation to make it possible have good opensource drivers. currently the opensource driver has 3d acceleration up to r500 cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_R520). 3d acceleration for r600/r700 is on its way.

so if you want 3d on the newest ati card you will need to use the ati binary drivers. these seem to be slightly more problematic than the nvidia closed source drivers, but getting better. nvidia does nothing to help the opensource nvidia drivers, which only do 2d.

[CharmyBee]

also fglrx stopped being the 'slow horrible driver' since 2007, so all that ati-is-horrible-in-linux is a myth of the past now.

Do still get video buffer issues though

[NJC]

I did quite a bit of research for my last PC build ~2 months ago. Word on Google street seemed to be if running stock - AMD; otherwise overclocked Intel chips were best value for dollar. And specifically price - performance ratio the Intel E5200 did well. I have the E5200 overclocked to 3Ghz (stock 2.5Ghz) and it runs most tasks @ ~35C (as per Ubuntu measurements) with stock cooler.

This is a good article comparing Intel/AMD: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon-x2-7750.html

[samjh]

Intel for me. The market seems to agree as well.

AMD was very good in the 2002-2005 era, but they've fallen behind Intel in terms of performance, pricing, and quality.


i like both AMd and Intel for processors,but I have noticed AMd seems to need for cooling then Intel.

AMD processors used to run hotter than comparable Intel processors. I don't know about their latest generation of processors though.

With the trend toward cooler, less power-hungry processors, efficient designs are more important than every before. Intel seems to be leading the charge on that front, so they'll continue to be ahead for the foreseeable future (which isn't very long).

[toupeiro]

Historically, I have used AMD much longer than Intel with very much satisfaction. However, I find myself on the other end of the fence this time around for the first time since my P133, and its pretty nice. Right now, AMD's offerings aren't really on par with the Nehalem Intel chips. I do suspect its a short matter of time before this changes.

I am still a bigger fan of AMD-V instruction sets when it comes to dense virtualization.

[Calmatory]

You can not just compare Intel to AMD or AMD to Intel. Why is that? Because it does not MATTER.

The thing which matters is the microarchitecture which lies behind the CPU. It comes down to THAT, not to the manufacturer. Sure, AMD and Intel have their own µArchs(For example K8(Athlon64) and Core(Core2Duo)), but there is absolutely NO WAY to say something so round that "Intel is faster but AMD is cooler", because that makes no sense. Let me explain why:

First of all, how is X faster? At which clock speeds, at which task? Is it faster when comparing clock-to-clock(same closkpeed, e.g. 2.2 GHz vs. 2.2 GHz) or is it faster when comparing with typical speeds, e.g. 2.6 GHz vs. 2.2 GHz? Now how is that comparison even fair?

Same with cooling, cooler at which clockspeed? Cooler under which circumstances? With which CPU coolers? Also, remember that the boxed cooler which comes with the CPU/is assembled by OEM's plays critical role. The ONLY thing which matters with this "cooling" is the power draw of the CPU.

Right now Intel is on top(Core2Duo, Core i7), but after AMD introduces it's new µarch(K11, With Bulldozer) it might be very well possible that AMD takes the lead. And then Intel will strike back, and then AMD will strike back to get the crown again. Tic-tac-tic-tac.... ;)

It does not matter which CPU the computer has really, be it Intel or AMD, it will be fast enough anyway, and even if it wasn't, the competitors equivalent(equivalent as in price range) wouldn't be any faster/better really anyway.

[Mehall]

Says the guy with a Celeron M :roll:

[b@sh_n3rd]

Hi, thanks for all of your replies and suggestions once again :D. I like Calmatory's post. I agree with his hypothesis. Ok, I've got my brain ticking now, I'm quite interested in buying a Phenom, most probably with 4 Cores. 3 wouldn't be bad either. What mobo should I buy for the Phenom? If it is Intel I can manage coz I have an additional Intel mobo myself and I have worked with em. I want to build a powerful system but have a limited budget. Especially coz I'M not the one generating the capital :D, (gotta ask mom or dad :D). Anyways, the system would have a Phenom x3 or x4. I wouldn't mind Phenom II either. My prob is the mobo. BTW, this is a separate Q. What AMD processor could beat the Intel Core 2 Duo? :D. Thanks..

[toupeiro]

You can not just compare Intel to AMD or AMD to Intel. Why is that? Because it does not MATTER.

The thing which matters is the microarchitecture which lies behind the CPU. It comes down to THAT, not to the manufacturer. Sure, AMD and Intel have their own µArchs(For example K8(Athlon64) and Core(Core2Duo)), but there is absolutely NO WAY to say something so round that "Intel is faster but AMD is cooler", because that makes no sense. Let me explain why:

First of all, how is X faster? At which clock speeds, at which task? Is it faster when comparing clock-to-clock(same closkpeed, e.g. 2.2 GHz vs. 2.2 GHz) or is it faster when comparing with typical speeds, e.g. 2.6 GHz vs. 2.2 GHz? Now how is that comparison even fair?

Same with cooling, cooler at which clockspeed? Cooler under which circumstances? With which CPU coolers? Also, remember that the boxed cooler which comes with the CPU/is assembled by OEM's plays critical role. The ONLY thing which matters with this "cooling" is the power draw of the CPU.

Right now Intel is on top(Core2Duo, Core i7), but after AMD introduces it's new µarch(K11, With Bulldozer) it might be very well possible that AMD takes the lead. And then Intel will strike back, and then AMD will strike back to get the crown again. Tic-tac-tic-tac.... ;)

It does not matter which CPU the computer has really, be it Intel or AMD, it will be fast enough anyway, and even if it wasn't, the competitors equivalent(equivalent as in price range) wouldn't be any faster/better really anyway.

I don't have enough time this evening to dissect all the problems with this post... It matters! Its not always a matter of clock speed, its a matter of IO. It's a matter of Socket major versus core major affinity, its a matter of memory channels, FSB, NUMA hypertransports across sockets, on-chip Cache (how much and how fast).. Its a matter of MANY things, and AMD and Intel have different ways of addressing many of these things. These scenarios do scale down as well, right down to gamers in fact, so its not just a matter of high performance computing, but if you care enough to ask the question, then you care enough to get an informed answer.

[b@sh_n3rd]

huh? anyway...I get his (Calmatory) point, even if it isn't highly detailed :D

EDIT: So, anyone got an A to my Q?
Anyways, the system would have a Phenom x3 or x4. I wouldn't mind Phenom II either. My prob is the mobo. BTW, this is a separate Q. What AMD processor could beat the Intel Core 2 Duo? . Thanks..

[Pasdar]

Says the guy with a Celeron M :roll:

roflmao

[racerraul]

ATi has been much better in Linux than it has been. I have actually seen more Nvidia problems as of late on the absolute beginners forum.

Beginners being the key word, in that post.


also fglrx stopped being the 'slow horrible driver' since 2007, so all that ati-is-horrible-in-linux is a myth of the past now.

Do still get video buffer issues though

I have 2 motherboards with the ATI HD3200 integrated GPU. I had a horrible time trying to get comparable results to an older install with an Nvidia 4200.

The FGLRX driver did not support 3D acceleration on my HD3200
The Catalist 9.1 & 9.2 drivers didn't either.
The Catalist 9.3 driver supported 3D acceleration for my card, and I was able to get Compiz working, but the performance in Compiz wasn't as good as my Nvidia 4200 setup I have as referrence.

Tired of sitting around and waiting, I bought an Nvidia 9600gt and everything works using the 180.11 driver. Got it working the same day the card arrived.

If you must have an ATI, be sure to do more research than I did, and make sure the card you purchase is supported in what you want it to do.

Or just buy an Nvidia card.
I got a 4200, 7600 and 9600 working on diff systems without any problems... the remaining box still using the ATI HD3200 is using Catalist 9.3 and refuses to run Compiz. haven't tried 9.4 on it yet.

I want to support the Open Source effort just as much as the next guy... but ultimately I own a computer primarily to do what I want & need to do 1st. And at the moment, that means using the restricted Nvidia drivers to get what I want & need to get done on my PC.

[Mehall]

@OP: Go for a Phenom II, they are a LOT better than then Phenom I and, even if you're on a tight budget, you can get an AM2+ MoBo for it, instead of having to shell out for an AM3 Mobo and DDR3 RAM.

(AM2+ supports DDR2, which is still a fair bit cheaper)

RE: ATi and nVidia:

yes, the ATi open source driver is a lot better than the nv driver, but the nVidia proprietary driver is almost comparable to the Windows driver, making nVidia win out overall.

[b@sh_n3rd]

Hi, I was doing research on the Phenom II x4 in the AMD official website and came across a Mainboard recommendation tool. On the wizard I've selected the AMD Phenom II x4 for Processor line and 955 for Model No. When I select 955, the chipset manufacturer is AMD.

For chipset model I can choose from 790GX, 790FX, 780G and 790X.
From Mainboard Manufacturers I can select from ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte, ECS and Biostar.

I know about ASUS and Gigabyte but not about the others. In fact I've only heard that ASUS and Gigabyte are good but know less of ASUS. So, Which of these should I choose?

Which chipset is better and which Mainboard? I'd like to have a non-failing system coz I've got 5 of those "non-failing" and love em. I've experienced probs with Gigabyte so I'm scared of which non-Intel mobo to select. Thanks for any feedback.

[Skripka]

Which chipset is better and which Mainboard? I'd like to have a non-failing system coz I've got 5 of those "non-failing" and love em. I've experienced probs with Gigabyte so I'm scared of which non-Intel mobo to select. Thanks for any feedback.

I don't know what "non-failing" means.

ASUS, MSI, and BioStar make good mainboards, that I have used IME. The northbridge isn't that important, and will probably be at the bottom of the list of things that you notice. The 790 is their newest--the bad thing about AMD boards nowadays is that it is becoming impossible to get a AMD motherboard with Nvidia chipsets.

Of ASUS, MSI, and BioStar-Biostar has the worst documentation-it really is awful, this may or may not be an issue. If you know what you are doing, it doesn't matter too much-if you know what you are doing.

Things that are more important for comparison-board geography, backpanel I/O ports, what slots, bus frequency. And of course individual board idiocyncracies.

I have a BioStar TA790GX 128M mainboard. I got it and a PhenomII 720 for a mere $200 thanks to a combo deal on NewEgg. What don't I like about it? The documentation stinks. In terms of the hardware the most and only annoying thing about it, is that the master/slave arrangment of the 2 GPU slots has the master card in the bottom slot--blocking off the upper PCi slot. Whoever made that devision ought to be shot. For me it doesn't matter though as I use Nvidia, and onboard sound. Also something that was an initial concern was that the mosfets didn't have heatsinks attached.

My board/CPU run great even running the CPU with a whole extra core on the CPU-and at a 25% overclock. Great included overclock utilities-and great tweakability in the BIOS--non of wihch is explained in documentation.

[khelben1979]

In my opnion it's not easy to say which is the best: AMD vs Intel, but from what I have read about the Phenom II processors, they seem like a very good choice!

I also think that the X3 processors is a good choice too, especially if you're after a pretty cheap computer system.

To be honest, I'm tired of Intel and I'm going for AMD in the future, I think (it's always hard to know of course, but if it was this year then AMD for me, definitely!)

[MikeTheC]

I've always had a soft spot in my heart for AMD products. Every PC I've built over the years was AMD-based. And, as AMD is Intel's only real competition in the CPU market, it makes practical sense to continue to support them. That being said, I don't believe in blind allegiance.

I am very impressed with what I've seen/experienced/read about the Core2 series thus far and, of course, the i7 series (if that's what it's called exactly). We need competition from both of these companies.

A little over a year ago I bought the system I'm using right now (an eMachines tower) and it's AMD-based. It replaced an aging iMac G4/800 and, quite understandably, ripped the... um... well, let's just say it is a lot faster than my iMac and leave it at that, shall we? ;)

That being said, the itch to build another system does crop up from time to time, and I would love to build a i7 system (or a Core2 Quad at least). The thing which really stops me from doing this is that I already have a system that's 2.4GHz. Performance-wise, it fully meets my needs, and so the expense I'd go through is something I'd really have a hard time justifying.

[NJC]

Says the guy with a Celeron M :roll:

:lolflag::lolflag:

[b@sh_n3rd]

Hi, on the AMD website, I checked up on the Phenom II x4 955 and got the ASUS M4A79-T Deluxe as recommended Mobo, featuring the AMD 790FX chipset, including an AM3 socket. Since it's recommended, I think i'll go with that...any suggestions? Oh yeah, and im planning for an Ubuntu/Winblows dual-boot...Ubuntu WILL be primary. What's the best video card that'll work on Ubuntu without probs? I've noticed some Intel adapters to have no problems though.

[Calmatory]

I don't have enough time this evening to dissect all the problems with this post... It matters! Its not always a matter of clock speed, its a matter of IO. It's a matter of Socket major versus core major affinity, its a matter of memory channels, FSB, NUMA hypertransports across sockets, on-chip Cache (how much and how fast).. Its a matter of MANY things, and AMD and Intel have different ways of addressing many of these things. These scenarios do scale down as well, right down to gamers in fact, so its not just a matter of high performance computing, but if you care enough to ask the question, then you care enough to get an informed answer.

Why such reply? That implies that you actually KNOW something about the subject, so many buzzwords which can all be trimmed down to one word(which I used): microarchitecture, uarch or µarch. Basically the flood of buzzwords you used summed what I meant with microarchitecture, good job. :D

But let's dive deep into it then, you certainly seem like you want to know about the stuff.

First of all, the bus speed between components (chipset, memory, cpu) is mostly irrelevant in average desktop environment. Chipset(nowadays mainly southbridge) handles mostly the IO with devices(PCI/AGP/PCI-E, USB/Firewore, SATA/IDE). Nowadays northbridge is more or less integrated to CPU core(K8/K10, Intel's Nehalem) and handles PCI-Express bus and data transfer between RAM, PCI-E, CPU and has on-die memory controller.

Memory bandwidth and latency is also mostly irrelevant with average desktop applications and especially with games. Difference between single and dual channel memory configurations is slim with games, and for sure isn't noticeable. The applications which need memory bandwidth are mainly archiving and en/decoding software to some extent.

CPU cache design is more complex subject. First of all, cache sizes are not so relevant with AMD architectures, thanks to the integrated memory controller in CPU. This means that memory OPs go directly to the memory banks from the CPU instead of going trough northbridge as with Intel architecture(excluding Nehalem). Cache latencies do have an impact on performance, however this itself is quite complex subject aswell, depending on what kind of data, how much and under which kinds of circumstances(code-wise, how the pipeline is arranged).

The main issue with CPU caches is the cache hit/miss rate, meaning that whenever a memory OP is being made, the CPU checks whether or not the data is already found from cache. For writing, the data will be written to CPU cache first, then to the RAM. For reading, a check will be made whether or not does the data aleady exist in CPU data. If data exist the memory OP won't be issued and thus many cycles are being saved. If it does not exist, it can be written to the cache depending on how the architecture works.

L1 cache latency is usually around 2-4 cycles. L2 cache latency is usually around 15-35 cycles. With 2 GHz CPU this means 1-2 ns delay for any L1 cache OP. L2 cache OP delay is 7.5-17.5 ns delay. For comparison, RAM OPs usually take delays of 60-80 ns. As it seems, internal CPU cache is MANY times faster than RAM.

Then there is branch predictor, which does as the name suggests; predicts branches which can be found in executed code. There is again hit and miss rates with branch predictor, meaning the rate how accurately the predictor is predicting the branches. Every time the branch is mispredicted, the whole executing pipeline will be flushed and execution starts again from the mispredicted branch. This takes alot of cycles, up to 100+ cycles again depending on the code being executed and the architecture.

Then there is the internal code execution pipeline, which determines alot of things. Basically short(6-12 stages) pipeline executes code faster but has slower clock speeds compared to longer(12-24 stages) pipeline which is then slower but allows higher clock speeds. Basically Intel's Netburst architecture(Pentium 4) has long pipeline(At first 20 stages for Williamette, later 31 for Prescott). Then there are integer and floating point pipelines, or both are integrated as one.

Then there are ALU and FPU units, which can be fast or slow depending on their structure. Different x86 extensions(x87, 3dnow!, sse, sse2, ...) which can boost code performance and are more or less faster on different architecture than on the another. For example Windows program SuperPI is fast for Intel architectures because it uses legacy x87 instructions which are alot faster on Intel's architecure than they are on AMD's architecture. This would imply that Intel's architecture is faster, but in reality only the x87 execution unit is faster - and x87 isn't even used nowadays anyway hence the false belief would/will really skew the opinions and mislead people.

This subject is very deep and I tried to keep it short and simple, but as everyone can see, there are MANY variables in a CPU which have to be considered when really doing comparisons between different microarchitectures. Sure the best way is to take bunch of everyday programs and measure the speed differences. That would be the best way, obviously. :)

If anyone wants to read more, here's are few links:
AMD K7 Microarchitecture (www.cmpe.boun.edu.tr/courses/cmpe511/fall2003/amd.doc)
AMD K8 Microarchitecture (http://www.mindshare.com/files/resources/MindShare_AMD_K8_whitepaper.pdf)
Intel Core Microarchitecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_microarchitecture)


Says the guy with a Celeron M :roll:

And now what do you mean with this? Yes, my laptop has Celeron M and I am happy with it, it is based on Core architecture and for sure beats anything AMD had to offer(With K8 based CPU's) back when the CPU was introduced. Oh, desktop machine has AMD CPU, server machine has AMD CPU, old server had AMD CPU and I've got 3 computers with AMD CPUs in the closet. Sure few Intel ones aswell, but if anything I'd say I am more biased towards AMD than towards Intel, unless the performance differs(like now, Intel is both faster and cheaper and has better microarchitectures).

[SigmaSanti]

I am glad to hear that you are not going to use any integrated cards, I have an nvidia 8200 which has caused lots of problems even with stable drivers. However Nvidia does (for the present ati opensource will probably catch up some day) offer best support for graphics in ubuntu.
I recomend you chose a card that uses pci 2.0 x16 express, since it is the newest pci connection ( i think ), you board should have one.
I would chose nvidia 8800 or higher, the best thing to do is find comparisons since an 8800 is usually better than a 9300.
Key comparisons should be:
1. Core speed
2. No. Stream processors
3. Ram size and speed

Remeber some games will not support certain cards, so look at some of your favorites and immediatly remove any unsuported from the list.

[HappyFeet]

I have always preferred AMD. For the average user, they are more than fast enough, and are a lot less money than Intel. Hardware has advanced so much faster than the software at this point, that it really makes Intel's faster CPU's kind of meaningless.

[3Miro]

My experience is that Intel is a bit faster for a lot more money. IMO as soon as you put cash into the equation AMD wins by a lot.

Then comes the part where I use my computer to do math simulations. The optimized Intel Math Kernel Libraries (MKL) cost an obscene amount of money. AMD's AMD Core Math Library (ACML) is free (with the purchase of the CPU of course, those wouldn't run on anything else). There is a free MKL for personal use, however, I don't qualify for it since I am getting payed for my research, however, as a student I get payed less then the cost of the license is. For that money I can buy an NVIDIA Tesla which would run circles around any CPU. For me, Intel's policies come too close to MS's. philosophy.

[BrokenKingpin]

My server has an AMD and my Desktop has an Intel. For a budget machine I go with AMD... best bang for your buck. For a higher end gaming machine I go with Intel.

[b@sh_n3rd]

Calmatory, I asked this Q coz i was wondering whether i should build a system with an Intel processor and mobo or try out AMD (the Phenom actually). Your post was quite informative though. I learned something from that, Thanks :D. Really like ur name btw :).
I was thinking of getting an external vid. card coz it'd help avoid any problems that are likely to occur and i could get a vid. card for what i need/want. I was thinking of AGP, not PCI. It's supposed to be faster and better right? Furthermore, I thought AMD was better for gaming. Read about that somewhere when surfing the net on this topic.

EDIT: Oh yeah, btw, i said "non-failing" coz i've worked on a comp that had a Gigabyte mobo and a built in VIA processor. The mobo seemed to have been dead. Prob with the RAM. After that i'm worried about non-intel boards which i trust to an extent. But come to think of it, when i said "5 non-failing", i meant computer systems. For e.g, this system im using is running with Jaunty and is a DELL OptiPlex GXa, Pentium II 266Mhz, 386MB RAM. The thing is, it's 11 yrs old this April!...never fails :D.

[Mehall]

B@sh_n3rd: I have an AMD K6-2 that would still work had the PSU not blown on it.

If I had a PSU for it, I'd rather use that than the PIII I use for something now, but the PIII is in a smaller case, and I can't be bothered moving MoBo's.

I also have an old Cyrix that was on it's last legs till I persuaded it that it wanted to let me install Debian ;)
Anyway, I'm Off Topic here, just sayign that I have plenty systems that work fine, regardless of Amd/Intel

And that AMD? with the busted PSU? It was my dad's colleagues that I got when she upgraded. It had never been taken care of, the woman barely knows computers, so I wasn't surprised to have the PSU blow the first time I tried to boot it. Needless to say I made sure everything was still okay ;)

[b@sh_n3rd]

:D, well i was wondering about the mobo, not the chip. I really don't like to spend excessive amounts of mon. to get one comp and have to repair it again. That'd be annoying as much as a waste :D. Why couldn't u get a new PSU? I've had 3 get busted due to poor earthing in my "personal-comp-lab" at home :D. Feel like assaulting the old dude that owns the house for that...:D. It even busted a DELL monitor and an LG TV. (got the TV working though).

[Mehall]

I can;t get a new PSU because I have no money.

When I get money, I'd be better upgrading RAM and adding an AGP/PCI gfx card to the desktop I have, and maybe upgrading processor, though if I did that I would be as well buying a new Mobo too. but the ram and gfx card are good ideas for my money.

[zakany]

My advice is to buy the best bang for your buck at the time you're buying. Never second guess - whatever you buy today will be obsolete tomorrow.

[toupeiro]

Why such reply? That implies that you actually KNOW something about the subject, so many buzzwords which can all be trimmed down to one word(which I used): microarchitecture, uarch or µarch. Basically the flood of buzzwords you used summed what I meant with microarchitecture, good job. :D

But let's dive deep into it then, you certainly seem like you want to know about the stuff.

First of all, the bus speed between components (chipset, memory, cpu) is mostly irrelevant in average desktop environment. Chipset(nowadays mainly southbridge) handles mostly the IO with devices(PCI/AGP/PCI-E, USB/Firewore, SATA/IDE). Nowadays northbridge is more or less integrated to CPU core(K8/K10, Intel's Nehalem) and handles PCI-Express bus and data transfer between RAM, PCI-E, CPU and has on-die memory controller.

Memory bandwidth and latency is also mostly irrelevant with average desktop applications and especially with games. Difference between single and dual channel memory configurations is slim with games, and for sure isn't noticeable. The applications which need memory bandwidth are mainly archiving and en/decoding software to some extent.

CPU cache design is more complex subject. First of all, cache sizes are not so relevant with AMD architectures, thanks to the integrated memory controller in CPU. This means that memory OPs go directly to the memory banks from the CPU instead of going trough northbridge as with Intel architecture(excluding Nehalem). Cache latencies do have an impact on performance, however this itself is quite complex subject aswell, depending on what kind of data, how much and under which kinds of circumstances(code-wise, how the pipeline is arranged).

The main issue with CPU caches is the cache hit/miss rate, meaning that whenever a memory OP is being made, the CPU checks whether or not the data is already found from cache. For writing, the data will be written to CPU cache first, then to the RAM. For reading, a check will be made whether or not does the data aleady exist in CPU data. If data exist the memory OP won't be issued and thus many cycles are being saved. If it does not exist, it can be written to the cache depending on how the architecture works.

L1 cache latency is usually around 2-4 cycles. L2 cache latency is usually around 15-35 cycles. With 2 GHz CPU this means 1-2 ns delay for any L1 cache OP. L2 cache OP delay is 7.5-17.5 ns delay. For comparison, RAM OPs usually take delays of 60-80 ns. As it seems, internal CPU cache is MANY times faster than RAM.

Then there is branch predictor, which does as the name suggests; predicts branches which can be found in executed code. There is again hit and miss rates with branch predictor, meaning the rate how accurately the predictor is predicting the branches. Every time the branch is mispredicted, the whole executing pipeline will be flushed and execution starts again from the mispredicted branch. This takes alot of cycles, up to 100+ cycles again depending on the code being executed and the architecture.

Then there is the internal code execution pipeline, which determines alot of things. Basically short(6-12 stages) pipeline executes code faster but has slower clock speeds compared to longer(12-24 stages) pipeline which is then slower but allows higher clock speeds. Basically Intel's Netburst architecture(Pentium 4) has long pipeline(At first 20 stages for Williamette, later 31 for Prescott). Then there are integer and floating point pipelines, or both are integrated as one.

Then there are ALU and FPU units, which can be fast or slow depending on their structure. Different x86 extensions(x87, 3dnow!, sse, sse2, ...) which can boost code performance and are more or less faster on different architecture than on the another. For example Windows program SuperPI is fast for Intel architectures because it uses legacy x87 instructions which are alot faster on Intel's architecure than they are on AMD's architecture. This would imply that Intel's architecture is faster, but in reality only the x87 execution unit is faster - and x87 isn't even used nowadays anyway hence the false belief would/will really skew the opinions and mislead people.

This subject is very deep and I tried to keep it short and simple, but as everyone can see, there are MANY variables in a CPU which have to be considered when really doing comparisons between different microarchitectures. Sure the best way is to take bunch of everyday programs and measure the speed differences. That would be the best way, obviously. :)

If anyone wants to read more, here's are few links:
AMD K7 Microarchitecture (www.cmpe.boun.edu.tr/courses/cmpe511/fall2003/amd.doc)
AMD K8 Microarchitecture (http://www.mindshare.com/files/resources/MindShare_AMD_K8_whitepaper.pdf)
Intel Core Microarchitecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_microarchitecture)



And now what do you mean with this? Yes, my laptop has Celeron M and I am happy with it, it is based on Core architecture and for sure beats anything AMD had to offer(With K8 based CPU's) back when the CPU was introduced. Oh, desktop machine has AMD CPU, server machine has AMD CPU, old server had AMD CPU and I've got 3 computers with AMD CPUs in the closet. Sure few Intel ones aswell, but if anything I'd say I am more biased towards AMD than towards Intel, unless the performance differs(like now, Intel is both faster and cheaper and has better microarchitectures).


I'm not quite sure which part of my post implied I needed a review on microarchitecture. You seem very well read on the subject matter, but whitepapers are and understanding how something works is one thing, but comparing two working architectures in the real world is the exercise in proof of concept behind everything you just typed. I wonder how much you've actually ever benched any of the technologies you are talking about and linking whitepapers to? For example, did you know that maxing out all memory channels in AMD's architecture drops your overall RAM bus frequency? This is something you could easily determine for yourself rather inexpensively if you really are interested in diving deep. Intel's architecture does not have this issue. You said it doesn't matter, you are not correct. What I've seen with real world benchmarks in single hosts, or clusters of Infiniband connected hosts, is that it absolutely does. Core major versus socket major aware applications would be another huge example of distributing compute cycles across all your available cores or sockets. Parallelism on a P4, for example will see the most efficiency through socket major, but throw a quad-core into the mix with socket major and your performance is going to hurt. Finally, you don't need compute clusters to see real results here. Any large, compute intensive games will put the same level of stress on a multi-core or multi socket system if the software can take advantage of it, which is the only reason I said on a very high level, not a deep dive, that it does matter to a computer consumer.

OP: If you're on a budget, I'd go with the AMD. There are some very good reports out on Phenom Overclocking with their latest chips that will put you comfortably above an entry level i7 chip if you're not afraid to suck a little more electricity and have decent cooling/airflow. you will still see a frequency drop in your RAM bus if you max out the slots so consider the density of the memory chips you want to buy if you don't want to be impacted by this design flaw. From a base design/performance standpoint, the i7 architecture is better, but it is going to cost you more. The i7 is also showing to be very stable when overclocked. For Motherboards, while there is no such thing as any electrical device that won't fail, I've had very good luck with ASUS. I'm currently running a P6T Deluxe v2 with my Core i7 chip and I'm happy with it, as I was my last ASUS board.

[b@sh_n3rd]

Hi, my idea is to build a custom PC for some general apps and to run a few games on it. Umm, i did some research and thought i'd take a look on Foxconn. The name kinda has something to it so i came across the Foxconn A7DA 3.0 mobo powered by the AMD 790GX chipset with an AM3 socket. It's designed for the Phenom II. Anyone have experience with Foxconn? And it seems that AMD promotes ATI especially as ATI is now part of AMD. Are there any probs with the ATI Radeon HD 3300 on Ubuntu? I think the mobo comes with that built-in. I wouldn't mind not having 3D Acceleration on Ubuntu but it WOULD be fun to have Compiz running...

EDIT: I forgot to change the subject line to, "Foxconn A7DA 3.0 for Phenom II?"

[b@sh_n3rd]

OK, i've come up with a complete solution, thanks to the cool dudes in this Forum and with a wee bit of help from my research.

I've chosen the AMD Phenom II X4 955 (3.2GHz, AM3) Processor.
I've also chosen the Foxconn A7DA 3.0 mobo with an AMD 790GX chipset and socket AM3 to run it. The only thing is, this mobo has a built-in ATI Radeon HD 3300 video adapter which might or might not work on Ubuntu with 3D acceleration enabled. Any help on that? I've got no problem with not having 3D on Ubuntu though, just to take a look at compiz. Besides, a better driver might appear later on in the future. Thanks guys for helping me out with my decision. cheers.

--b@sh_n3rd --[K!RK]

[toupeiro]

OK, i've come up with a complete solution, thanks to the cool dudes in this Forum and with a wee bit of help from my research.

I've chosen the AMD Phenom II X4 955 (3.2GHz, AM3) Processor.
I've also chosen the Foxconn A7DA 3.0 mobo with an AMD 790GX chipset and socket AM3 to run it. The only thing is, this mobo has a built-in ATI Radeon HD 3300 video adapter which might or might not work on Ubuntu with 3D acceleration enabled. Any help on that? I've got no problem with not having 3D on Ubuntu though, just to take a look at compiz. Besides, a better driver might appear later on in the future. Thanks guys for helping me out with my decision. cheers.

--b@sh_n3rd --[K!RK]

While I've never alltogether been a big fan of embedded video, its usually easy enough to turn off in the BIOS if you want to upgrade. There are hundreds of posts "literally" about trials and successes with ATi video cards in ubuntu. Doing a quick forum search should yield all the information you could ever want on the subject. I've been a long time fan of ATi hardware, but due to the state of their drivers compared to NVidia, they are just not an option for me right now.

[b@sh_n3rd]

ahuh. Should nVidia work better on ubuntu? i'm kinda inexperienced with nVidia. Just know about it here and there. I did see the Xorg binaries in Jaunty's repos.

[NJC]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core2duo-e7300-pdc-e5200/ratio.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e7300-pdc-e5200_10.html#sect0

[PryGuy]

Intel! Intel! Intel!
I'm lovin' it! :P

[b@sh_n3rd]

Cool, but apparently my Q has been answered and that graph is missing the Phenom II X4. In fact, it's just got the "Phenom X3"...not Phenom II...thanks anyway...that tells me somethng i've been wanting to know some time ago before this thread :D.

[CharmyBee]

That's an old graph though. It doesn't cover AMD's new budget 7750 BE processor, which was available in the $60-70 range and outperforms the first 3 on the left.

[crl0901]

to be perfectly honest, you'll be fine if you go with either, since both are pushing great technology for a relatively low comparable price. AMD used to be a tech nerd favorite because they ran so cool and were still powerful, but when the Conroe chips came out (the first Core2Duo processors), Intel beat AMD at it's own game, offering chips that ran extremely cool, fast and were inexpensive. Currently, both company's offerings are pretty evenly matched. I, myself, tend to dig Intel more, I'm running an E6600 on a Gigabyte DS3R board and I love it.

[3Miro]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core2duo-e7300-pdc-e5200/ratio.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e7300-pdc-e5200_10.html#sect0

This is 7 months old and completely outdated.

[NJC]

Cool, but apparently my Q has been answered and that graph is missing the Phenom II X4.
The Phenom II X4 is a high end chip though, more comparable with the Intel Quad core CPU's.

[toupeiro]

OP: To answer your earlier question, yes NVidia is much better on linux. I work quite a bit with NVidia products at work on Linux. The NVidia product lines overall compatibility with Linux is far superior to that of ATi. Although I like ATi hardware, I run an NVidia card in my machine built less than a month ago (see autosig), and its a wonderful card!

[CharmyBee]

I think I need to mention that ATI's fglrx driver is a lot less painful to install in Ubuntu since Intrepid. Before in the past you had to workaround to even get fglrx.ko not reject itself, if you're lucky. This made ATI in linux appear to be relentlessly painful to install. There's no denying that, but it's been improved since.

[garythegoth]

Hi, I'm not exactly sure if this should go into this section of the forum but since it seems (or seemed) appropriate, I did.

I'm fond of assembling computer systems for various tasks. These may include usual tasks such as, internet browsing, chatting, playing multimedia and so on. I might also play a few games, some, of which aren't that demanding in system resources and some that are quite demanding.

Well, my question is, if I am to build a computer, would AMD or INTEL be better for one or more of the above mentioned tasks? And/Or, which of these two manufacturers are better in comparison to overall performance?

I've been trying to sort this out for some time now. Though I favor INTEL more, I currently seem to get attracted towards AMD. The OS used for the system is irrelevant to this topic. Thanks for any suggestions/replies.

Intel have an edge over AMD. But for general use AMD provides better value for money.

[Skripka]

I think I need to mention that ATI's fglrx driver is a lot less painful to install in Ubuntu since Intrepid. Before in the past you had to workaround to even get fglrx.ko not reject itself, if you're lucky. This made ATI in linux appear to be relentlessly painful to install. There's no denying that, but it's been improved since.

That may be...but the fglrx driver is so bad that the Arch admins removed that driver from their official repos and sent a nasty memo to ATi to shape up.

[b@sh_n3rd]

What's the difference between the AMD and nVidia chipset? Since I'm thinking of getting an AMD Phenom II, I thought it'd be best to choose AMD.

[WatchingThePain]

At present AMD is much better value for money.
Which is good if someone is just starting to build.
The cooling may have been a problem with chips like the old Duron but now AMD's are known to run cool.
Intel chips do outperform them for some things but then they might outperform Intel in some cases.
The Phenom II seems to be well received.

[Skripka]

What's the difference between the AMD and nVidia chipset? Since I'm thinking of getting an AMD Phenom II, I thought it'd be best to choose AMD.

For intents and purposes all it means is that you can crossfire multiple ATi cards...but cannot SLi multiple Nvidia.


Unfourtunately, AMD mainboards with NVidia chipsets are a dying breed.

[CharmyBee]

Unfourtunately, AMD mainboards with NVidia chipsets are a dying breed.
That's okay, nForce is horrible anyway. (Ever heard the audio from nForce 3?)

[b@sh_n3rd]

That's okay, nForce is horrible anyway. (Ever heard the audio from nForce 3?)

How about the nForce 980a SLI? Apparently that's the only nForce board that supports my processor...

[anti_microsoft]

I am very happy with my AMD 5400+ BE and with the motherboard I chose (ECS A780GM-A).
I can hit 3.4ghz with my CPU but have backed it dows to stock thanks to a borked temp sensor on my Brisbane core.

I say AMD (my vote). And my system is faaast! I have a fast drive (since that is where the bottleneck is most of the time anyhow) and I paid 77$ for my chip! How can I complain?

[Malakai]

Right now AMD's "Spider" Platform, a Phenom 2, 790GX/FX, and ATI graphics card, cannot be beat for the price. With ddr2 for max value.
An Intel i7 920 core system (cpu/ram/mobo) with 6gb ddr3-1600 or better is going to cost almost double what a P2 w/8gb ddr2-1066 will.

790gx is the best value offering both 2 card crossfire and great backup integrated dx10 graphics all at a 130 dollar price point!

I recommend doing a P2, 790 board, 8gb ddr2, and 1-2x radeon hd4770's depending on the gaming performance you need. A single one is fine for most poeple and anyone in linux. 2 of them crossfired are as fast as a 4890 in recent benchmarks at anandtech and tomshardware! And cheaper than that single 4890, so you get super scalable performance.

AMD needs some love right now, and they are doing it right by selling as low as they possibly can and to make their profit by the numbers, instead of Intels "charge a huge premium for the top half of our lineup" philosophy.


If you are lucky enough to be in a situation where spending the extra cash for i7 over Phenom 2 is not an issue, then by all means go for it, they are screaming fast.
But my X4 940BE will be right on your tail chugging along at 3.6ghz!

[Pasdar]

ATI videocards really own nvidia's cards, its just that their Linux drivers still suck. Just check notebookcheck, the top videocards are nearly all ATI cards and the best one is an ATI, they rock on windows. I wonder how long it will take them to fix the 3D problem on their Linux drivers.

[Tipped OuT]

I think this thread is kind of pointless. Intel and AMD both have there own advantages, this is like Windows vs Linux pretty much. AMD is less expensive, but of course have there disadvantages, Intel is more pricey, but has there advantages, and in vice versa.

But of course this is just my opinion, I speak for myself. ;)

[Pasdar]

I think this thread is kind of pointless. Intel and AMD both have there own advantages, this is like Windows vs Linux pretty much. AMD is less expensive, but of course have there disadvantages, Intel is more pricey, but has there advantages, and in vice versa.

But of course this is just my opinion, I speak for myself. ;)

The thing is, can you mention these "disadvantages". The disadvantages I hear people mention are of old single core AMD cpu's that don't even get produced anymore. The so called Athlon XP's and what not. (e.g. heat, high wattage, etc... ) these problems don't exist anymore. For example my ASUS X56TR had an AMD X2 RM-70, that thing would not even become hot after a whole day of usage. It was amazing at how cold the laptop stayed. Comparing this to my two other Intel laptops, HP Artist edition (Intel core 2) and ASUS EEE (Intel Atom)... both were at least three to four times hotter in less time.

For example,
AMD Turion Ultra ZM-88, 2.5Ghz, 2MB L2-Cache, 1.8 Ghz HT, 35 W TDP, 12.5 multiplier

You wanne bet I can find a laptop using this for a much cheaper price than its Intel equivalent? In fact, you will not come anywhere near the price for anything half as good in Intel.

Here I'll make it even easier for you.

Asus F5Z-AP025C
AMD Turion 64 X2 ZM-80 (2.1 Ghz, 2MB Cache, 1.8 Ghz HT, 32 Watt TDP, 10.5 Multiplier)

3GB DDR2-800
ATI Radeon Mobility HD3200
15.4"
320GB @ 5400 RPM
3 year warranty
weighs: 2.6 kg
Price: 600 EUR or 808 USD

Now you find me the equivalent of the above with Intel with same or lower price.

[Tipped OuT]

The thing is, can you mention these "disadvantages". The disadvantages I hear people mention are of old single core AMD cpu's that don't even get produced anymore. The so called Athlon XP's and what not. (e.g. heat, high wattage, etc... ) these problems don't exist anymore. For example my ASUS X56TR had an AMD X2 RM-70, that thing would not even become hot after a whole day of usage. It was amazing at how cold the laptop stayed. Comparing this to my two other Intel laptops, HP Artist edition (Intel core 2) and ASUS EEE (Intel Atom)... both were at least three to four times hotter in less time.

For example,
AMD Turion Ultra ZM-88, 2.5Ghz, 2MB L2-Cache, 1.8 Ghz HT, 35 W TDP, 12.5 multiplier

You wanne bet I can find a laptop using this for a much cheaper price than its Intel equivalent? In fact, you will not come anywhere near the price for anything half as good in Intel.

Here I'll make it even easier for you.

Asus F5Z-AP025C
AMD Turion 64 X2 ZM-80 (2.1 Ghz, 2MB Cache, 1.8 Ghz HT, 32 Watt TDP, 10.5 Multiplier)

3GB DDR2-800
ATI Radeon Mobility HD3200
15.4"
320GB @ 5400 RPM
3 year warranty
weighs: 2.6 kg
Price: 600 EUR or 808 USD

Now you find me the equivalent of the above with Intel with same or lower price.

Okay, okay dude. It's just a processor for crying out loud :lolflag:

I based my post from what I've heard from other people, I only used an Intel before.

Good point though, thanks for the information. :)


PS: On an unrelated note to everyone, please remember, I'm a joking type of guy, never take my posts as disrespectful or serious. ;)

I seriously need to make that my sig.

EDIT: Done. :)

[b@sh_n3rd]

TippedOuT...like your "new" sig :D...I'm a jokin type 'o guy too...nice to meet a chap with something in common..lol (I don't like to say that but "hehe" sounds err..."feminine" apparently :D) Anyways, your post does make sense...yeah, this topic is similar to winblows vs. linux...how "queer" :D...

You see? The reason for this thread is just coz I was beginning to get "pulled" towards AMD's gravity (like Jupiter) and I was well..err..just wondering what was in store for me :D...

Anyhow, I picked ze AMD Phenom II 955 which is just awesome...now pickin between ATI and NVIDIA for umm...weeks I think...

Pasdar (any relation with Mazda? love em), your argument is quite cool...yeah you don't get Intel's like that...now if ever I "need" (I don't like em that much) to buy a laptop, I'll know what I want :D...In fact I was shocked that AMD's so cool after a DAY! umm...how's the Turion in relation to Intel's Centrino? coz my twin cousin's, dad's got an LG Laptop with an Intel Centrino (1) and I was told that it tends to get hot after a couple of hours work...on the net!!...That just increased my dislike against laptops :D...

[cogitordi]

I think this thread is kind of pointless.

It's not a pointless discussion. But talking about things without providing evidence is pointless. (This should be obvious.)

Why is it not a pointless discussion?

First, because AMD gear is much less expensive. (Only pointless to those for whom money is not a limiting factor.)

Second, because the task you perform with a computer may need specialization, and any particular advantage may save you time. (Only pointless to those for whom time is not a limiting factor.)

Third, because if your goal is to use open-source software and hardware, open-source drivers are ESSENTIAL. If your gear is made by companies that don't support open-source, your time will be wasted and you will be frustrated. (Only pointless to those with unlimited patience.)

At present, as it has been for a long time, AMD is cheaper and its performance range is strong in the middle. Intel dominates in the high-end.
Reference:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

AMD has long been a platform friendly to open-source. I use Ubuntu because I support open source. AMD+ATI works without hassles for me.

I have a mix of AMD and Intel PCs. I use Ubuntu, M-Windows, and OS X. I don't do video encoding or gaming. I do watch movies. I find movies play back well on all my computers.

Some of my CPUs are older, single-core products. For audio encoding, there is no significant difference between a single-core and a multi-core CPU.
Reference:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/multi-core-cpu,2280-6.html

For video encoding, there IS a significant difference.
Reference:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/multi-core-cpu,2280-7.html

If a consumer wants to play computer games, the best computer will always be the fastest that's available, and the best OS will be the one for which the popular games are written.

If a consumer just wants a computer to do office work (including Internet), even a computer with a single-core CPU will be MORE THAN ADEQUATE.

Specialized applications (film editing, manipulating very large pictures, multi-track recording) will probably need very fast computers with very expensive software (which will dictate the choice of OS).

[b@sh_n3rd]

It's not a pointless discussion. But talking about things without providing evidence is pointless. (This should be obvious.)

Why is it not a pointless discussion?

First, because AMD gear is much less expensive. (Only pointless to those for whom money is not a limiting factor.)

Second, because the task you perform with a computer may need specialization, and any particular advantage may save you time. (Only pointless to those for whom time is not a limiting factor.)

Third, because if your goal is to use open-source software and hardware, open-source drivers are ESSENTIAL. If your gear is made by companies that don't support open-source, your time will be wasted and you will be frustrated. (Only pointless to those with unlimited patience.)

At present, as it has been for a long time, AMD is cheaper and its performance range is strong in the middle. Intel dominates in the high-end.
Reference:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

AMD has long been a platform friendly to open-source. I use Ubuntu because I support open source. AMD+ATI works without hassles for me.

I have a mix of AMD and Intel PCs. I use Ubuntu, M-Windows, and OS X. I don't do video encoding or gaming. I do watch movies. I find movies play back well on all my computers.

Some of my CPUs are older, single-core products. For audio encoding, there is no significant difference between a single-core and a multi-core CPU.
Reference:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/multi-core-cpu,2280-6.html

For video encoding, there IS a significant difference.
Reference:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/multi-core-cpu,2280-7.html

If a consumer wants to play computer games, the best computer will always be the fastest that's available, and the best OS will be the one for which the popular games are written.

If a consumer just wants a computer to do office work (including Internet), even a computer with a single-core CPU will be MORE THAN ADEQUATE.

Specialized applications (film editing, manipulating very large pictures, multi-track recording) will probably need very fast computers with very expensive software (which will dictate the choice of OS).

well put :D..does that mean that if I buy an ASUS desktop board with an AMD chipset and integrated ATI video adapter (ATI Radeon HD 3300), I wouldn't have any problems with it on Ubuntu? Coz, that's what I'm planning to buy...AMD Phenom II 955 + ASUS M4A78T-E...see my sig? :D

[Delever]

While your observation is valid, you forgot to mention that it is cheaper "at the moment". There was a period for a while with Intel offering better speed for price, and only recently new products from AMD changed few things. Therefore, being fan of certain brand does not make sense, but being fan of cheaper and better product does :)

EDIT:
cogitordi

[dE_logics]

No doubt AMD.

Intel is like Microsoft...it tries to make a monopoly, then takes 90% profits and have fun with it (actually it goes to the chairman's pocket, e.g Mr Bill...no wonder he's so rich!...all the cash went to HIM not on R&D and things like that!)

That's why Intel at the current state takes around 50% profits while AMD takes 30% (despite this fact, it's cheep).

If we see the value for money, there's absolutely no reason to buy Intel.

Without competition Intel will be all pentium...1,2,3,4......10 @10ghz and no architecture difference between them.

You can see this in the higher end processor market, where intel dominates and is the only player; for meniscus performance boosts...it charges 100% more; this manifests what intel would do without competition.

So close your eyes and buy and support AMD; kill Microsoft and Intel.

[Dimitriid]

While your observation is valid, you forgot to mention that it is cheaper "at the moment". There was a period for a while with Intel offering better speed for price, and only recently new products from AMD changed few things. Therefore, being fan of certain brand does not make sense, but being fan of cheaper and better product does :)

EDIT:

Being a smaller company AMD is usually a tad behind the manufacturing process, accounting for those smalls periods of time. Once they get to the same manufacturing process ( i.e. 45nm lately ) they price-performance ratio beats intel everytime.

Thats why I like AMD.

[HappyFeet]

The money I save by buying AMD allows me to get a better video card. To me, Intel is just not worth the extra money.