+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 54 of 54
General Chat Thread, Whats best Intel Chips or AMD Chips? in General; AMD may be on their way to making a comeback, they have some nice plans now they are Gering revenue ...
  1. #46

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,268
    Thank Post
    884
    Thanked 2,747 Times in 2,321 Posts
    Blog Entries
    11
    Rep Power
    785
    AMD may be on their way to making a comeback, they have some nice plans now they are Gering revenue from all the consoles where they own the lot, XB1, PS4 and the Nintendo profit crater all have AMD under the hood. AMD earnings get a much-needed lift from console sales | PCWorld

  2. #47
    stevenlong1985's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    524
    Thank Post
    769
    Thanked 107 Times in 72 Posts
    Rep Power
    79
    I couldn't get used to the number or naming of Intel cores, or which Generations they are at. Upgrading a Laptop CPU was a pain, never sure which CPU to use 478 or 479 etc
    So I stuck to AMD, which isnt bad at all and very much enjoying it running AMD FX 8350 @4Ghz both at work and at home.

    I have AMDat work with our Hyper-V servers too, so if i need to upgrade the CPU with more cores I can do and get up 24-cores if I need too.

    BTW GF is Making Beer battered COD and Chips this weekend!
    Last edited by stevenlong1985; 22nd May 2014 at 03:31 PM.

  3. #48
    cpjitservices's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Hessle
    Posts
    2,560
    Thank Post
    529
    Thanked 295 Times in 271 Posts
    Rep Power
    84
    Chipspice please!

  4. #49
    cpjitservices's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Hessle
    Posts
    2,560
    Thank Post
    529
    Thanked 295 Times in 271 Posts
    Rep Power
    84
    Problem with AMD's is .. and I made this mistka eonce when I was first getting into computers.. I went into a shop and bought an AMD Athlon 3300+ or something like that... got home and installed it and it was a 1.8GHz.... But I thought on the box it said 3300 ? 3300 is not the speed!

  5. #50

    synaesthesia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northamptonshire
    Posts
    6,348
    Thank Post
    611
    Thanked 1,129 Times in 863 Posts
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    496
    Not much difference to anything these days though - there's nothing "2500" about an i5 2500
    Besides, the Barton core AMD XP3200 whooped anything Intel had to throw at them!

  6. Thanks to synaesthesia from:

    Dos_Box (22nd May 2014)

  7. #51
    cpjitservices's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Hessle
    Posts
    2,560
    Thank Post
    529
    Thanked 295 Times in 271 Posts
    Rep Power
    84
    I like AMD, I have a machine at home I think its an Athlon X2 64 bit 3.3GHz. Runs Windows 7 and Office just fine.

  8. #52

    mac_shinobi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    9,977
    Thank Post
    3,527
    Thanked 1,107 Times in 1,014 Posts
    Rep Power
    374
    How much would a reasonable gaming pc cost if its amd vs intel ?

  9. #53


    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    51.403651, -0.515458
    Posts
    9,613
    Thank Post
    250
    Thanked 2,900 Times in 2,133 Posts
    Rep Power
    828
    Quote Originally Posted by cpjitservices View Post
    I went into a shop and bought an AMD Athlon 3300+ or something like that... got home and installed it and it was a 1.8GHz.... But I thought on the box it said 3300? 3300 is not the speed!
    I think it was the Athlon XP 2200+ that ran at 1.8GHz. Despite the performance rating given to the processor by AMD at the time, it would have still better a better choice than the equivalent Pentium 4.

    In reaction to the consumers' misconception, AMD reinstated the Performance Rating (PR) to compare their Athlon XP microprocessors. AMD made sure to advertise the PR number of its microprocessors rather than their raw clock speeds believing that customers would compare the PR of AMD's processors to the clock speed of Intel's processors. The PR number was originally believed to show the clock speed (in megahertz) of an equivalent Pentium 4 processor, but this was never confirmed by AMD. As part of its marketing, AMD even made sure that motherboard manufacturers conspicuously showed the PR number of the microprocessor in the motherboards' POST and not include the processors' clock speeds anywhere except within the BIOS.

    The use of the convention with these processors (which are rated against AMD's earlier Thunderbird-based Athlon processors) is less criticized, as the Athlon XP is a capable performer in both integer and FPU operations, and manages to outperform an Intel Pentium 4 at a PR equalling the Pentium 4's clock speed. The Athlon XP (as well as the Athlon 64) PR scheme is not intended to be anything more than a comparison to the same family of processors, and not a direct comparison to Intel or any other company's processor speeds (in raw MHz), despite what sceptics may believe. (Source)
    The long and the short of it is this: a processor's clock speed—measured in MHz and GHz—isn't a reliable indicator, all by itself, of performance. We've seen that time and time again, as Athlons at 1.2 and 1.4GHz have handed higher-clocked Pentium 4 processors their heads. On a platter. The Pentium 4's NetBurst microarchitecture simply does less work per clock cycle than the Athlon. That fact doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on the P4 or on the Athlon, it's just the way things are. An Athlon Thunderbird at 1.2GHz is roughly equivalent, performance-wise, to a 1.7GHz Pentium 4. A 1.4GHz Athlon runs neck-and-neck with a 2GHz P4.

    Trouble is, the Pentium 4's super-high clock speeds tend to look mighty appealing on the features list of a brand-new PC. Given the choice between a 1.7GHz Intel and a 1.2GHz AMD at about the same price, the mythical Joe Sixpack is probably gonna opt for the 1.7GHz Intel. That uncomfortable fact threatens to become a marketing nightmare for AMD. Few companies would want to face the daunting prospect of explaining to Joe Sixpack why their 1.2GHz system is faster than the other guys' 1.7GHz box.

    Apple tried it, but it didn't work especially well for them—and people already knew Macs were weird to begin with.

    AMD's solution—check that, AMD's coping mechanism—is to try another spin at a well-worn tactic from the bad old days, when AMD and Cyrix CPUs played a sad second fiddle to Intel's: the Pentium Rating. Well, it's not exactly the Pentium Rating, but it is this: assigning a model number to a CPU based on relative performance rather than clock speed. (Source)

  10. #54
    mrbios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stroud, Gloucestershire
    Posts
    2,611
    Thank Post
    374
    Thanked 270 Times in 222 Posts
    Rep Power
    103
    I loved AMD processors up until the last Athlon 64s, then Intel took the lead and haven't given it up since. At least if we compare nothing but performance anyway.

    AMD have always been cheaper, but i prefer to standardise on Intel as the cost difference is tiny for what i buy for work (Pentium G3220s recently - perform perfectly in all current work applications for teachers and students bar the specialist areas), and i feel like i have full faith in the drivers for SCCM purposes too. As for at home, i always want the best performance regardless of cost so AMD don't even get a lookin at home, at least not since the athlon 64 days anyway.

    I generally tend to be leaning more in the direction of the company leading the market on performance, I'm the same with graphics cards, i switch between Nvidia and AMD all the time in that aspect too. If only Processors were more like the graphics market in terms of performance swing.

    Best system i ever had though:
    Athlon 2500+ Under a Mach II GT Phasechange cooling system running at -45oC, can't remember what clock speed i had that running at, but it was pretty quick
    Abit NF7-S - Amazing motherboard, i think i followed that up with a DFI Lanparty Nforce board, can't remember the model but it was quite popular (That might have been the board i moved to when i went to Athlon 64 though)
    ATI Radeon 9500 non pro - with the unlocking to a 9700pro

    That system was AWESOME!
    Last edited by mrbios; 22nd May 2014 at 07:49 PM.



SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Similar Threads

  1. Intel or AMD
    By localzuk in forum Hardware
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 29th March 2011, 10:50 AM
  2. Whats best, Fixed or Dynamic IP?
    By ninjabeaver in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 19th February 2009, 08:01 PM
  3. Intel or AMD
    By FN-GM in forum Hardware
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 23rd April 2008, 12:20 AM
  4. Nvidia Model codes - whats best? GS/GTS/GT
    By j17sparky in forum Hardware
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 4th December 2007, 02:02 PM
  5. To Chips or not to Chips!
    By Zoom7000 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 30th May 2007, 01:56 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •