Whats best Intel Chips or AMD Chips?

[mac_shinobi]

How much would a reasonable gaming pc cost if its amd vs intel ?

[Arthur]

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)

[mrbios]

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!

Edited May 22, 2014 by mrbios