What CPU should i choose AMD or INTEL?

[ghettorare]

I have an AMD 3000+ (333mhz fsb) and its the best stabled system i've ever used. I have a friend with a P4 3.2ghz and its alright and all i used it a couple of times and lets just say i'm happy with my AMD 3000!

 

[Mainframeguy]

Good to hear

Why?

Because I am about to upgrade my AMD Athlon 1600 to the XP 3000! (and I was considering a P4 too, but I think AMD have an edge, and the 64 prooves it)

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

I can say that my Athlon 2700+ will kill any 2.8 Intel

I run at 420Mhz all around

So for the price its AMD all the way and if you go AMD you should also go Nforce ultra 400 chipset its just too smooth

 

[Kush]

yup as all are saying im vey happy with amd and hope to get the new 64 bit one, but the operton is not for home users right its only for servers? but the normal amd 64 isnt 32 bit compatible right? i want one that is both

 

[2z]

that 800 fsb hyperthreading makes all the difference
you'll notice the difference more in the real world
not in benchmarks
the Pentium owns at multi tasking

the canterwood mobo looks like a good match for this chip

 

[Bronx Bomber]

the pentium does 0wn at multi tasking.

i love that 800mhz fsb and ht. i mean, for the money, its worth it imo. ive got a P4 2.6 HT Northwood. ive overclocked it to over 3.0GHz with air cooling only. definetly worth it if you like to multitask and you want to OC.

 

[Eck]

I like my 2.4, even though it's not hte FSB800 model. :'(

I've got it overclocked to 2.8GHz, and that's with the stock Intel heatsink. The temps are 38C idle, 52C max load. Get the Intel if ya wanna overclock. Hell, I'd get it anyway since it gives your overall system more bandwidth. 5,000MB/s+ if you've got dual channel DDR 3200 running.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

Eck - I love it for OCing.

i gots a Abit IC7-G and Dual Channel DDR. plus my P4 2.6 HT with 800mhz fsb. Amazingly nice for the OCing.

 

[JJB6486]

amd

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

Its amazing with a 200mhz cpu and ram at 400mhz or 200 ddr somehow people actually think its 800mhz sorry its 200 with 4 cycles but it remains cpu at 200mhz , and I dont see any Intel on top of the 64bit athlons , but hey whatever turns you on for the same price as one 3.2 intel you can have 2 full amd 3200 rigs so again $ for $ has to be AMD

 

[Friend of Bill]

Quote: "What CPU should i choose AMD or INTEL?"

If all else fails, go with your heart!

 

[Bronx Bomber]

odd, i thought there were 64bit Intels that were faster than the 64bit athlons.

 

[Perris Calderon]

on every one of these "which is better polls" I think my answer has always been to go with kerio

I stand by that advice

 

[jonifen]

I've always gone Intel and never had any problems. I've had one AMD machine in my family (was the kids old one - k6/2) and it gave me hella trouble. However, the new AMD thoroughbred and barton core XP cpus are pretty decent but arent as good at multitasking as an Intel.

Without a doubt, £ for £ (or $ for $ - depending on your currency), AMD works out cheaper, but if you do a lot of multitasking (which I do - too lazy to close progs to reopen them 30mins later lol) then the Intel is the better option.

As for o/cing... I dont do it myself, but they ARE mint for overclocking - I know quite a few people who o/c their p4 cpus while using the stock hsf and air cooling in case.

I'm building a 2000+ system for my girlfriend in a few weeks to replace her p3 733MHz. She doesnt tend to multitask with more than a few windows and she likes Q3, so the AMD is better for her.

 

[LeeJend]

AMD or Intel chips will not give you problems. It's the MB's or MB chipsets that have the issues.

The price difference is closing between the Intel and AMD CPU & MB setup. This surprised me. But once you reach the ~2.5 gig range Intel pricing takes off fast.

If I had to choose right now, I wouldn't. I've put off upgrading CPU/MB for maybe another 12 motnhs. AT the performance level I'm at (2 gig single DDR):

There is just no CPU/MB product out there that differentiates itself enough to waste $200 on. Even the 64 FX and P4 gaming chip Intel demo'd aren't worth $200 let alone $1000.

On the other hand if your under 1.5gig then jumping ot 2.5 gig is worth it. Either way Intel or AMD.

Flip a coin??????

 

[TheBlueRaja]

I have AMD, but at the moment if i had to put my cash down - it would goto Intel - UNLESS you wanna go as far as the 64.

 

[wyrlwyn]

uh oh... this battle again... well, i like intel for its simplicity... speed... and bus capabliity... and hyper threading is nice when you run seti all the time like me...

 

[l0g0ut]

i thought HT only makes a difference for HT optimized applications....

i have to agree that motherboard is the more important choice whicever way you choose to go....

 

[TheBlueRaja]

Originally posted by themafia_69
yup as all are saying im vey happy with amd and hope to get the new 64 bit one, but the operton is not for home users right its only for servers? but the normal amd 64 isnt 32 bit compatible right? i want one that is both

The normal AMD 64 IS 32 bit compatible, thats what gives it a huge edge over the 64bit Intel chips which - well - arent.

 

[ChrissiCom]

I am very loyal to brands normally but I recently switched from AMD, Asus and Nvidia to Intel, MSI and ATI, because I needed a change.

I had an Athlon XP 3000+ Barton and now I have a P4 3 Ghz with 800 FSB and when I compare the performance and stability of my P4 System, I really have to say the AMD rating is a bad joke!! The P4 is world classes better and the HT feature rocks on Windows XP based systems! There are also way more applications optimized for P4 systems especially for professional apps. A nice little extra is that the P4 doesn't get so hot and I can use a more silent cooling.

The system I had:
AMD 3000+
A7N8X Deluxe
GeForce FX5800

The system I have now:
P4 3 Ghz
MSI 875P Neo2 FISR
Radeon 9700 Pro

and I don't regret one single change in the system, let's see how long Intel, MSI and ATI can keep me in their basket lol