processor

[mkh]

hi
for a desktop pc which do you suggest ? intel or amd processor?

 

[akg]

visit www.tomshardware.com

 

[Overclocked]

visit www.tomshardware.com

I dont mean to be a downer, but in the comp world tomshardware is very biased when it comes to one company over the other. They are good for a basis of knowledge, but dont trust it completly (like wiki)

Right now, Intel's Conroe chip is top. Intel is coming back to the top () But you can get an Opty for cheap and get good overclocking results. I myself reccomend AMD, but thats me. If you have the cash you can get a FX-60 or a FX-62, but Im waiting to see how the FX-62 will stand up against the conroe.

 

[PDubya]

Agreed, Tom's used to be very unbiased and was a great resource, but it didn't take long before he (they) were bought off. A lot of reviews are clearly regurgitated marketing material, and are commonly paged to double-digit levels for no obvious reason (other than to increase advert exposure).

To back up Overclocked, I am also a fan of AMD. Their newest dual-core CPU's are my current recommendation to folks, and I have one in my development machine - as I would never recommend something I didn't own or use myself.

So, like OC noted, keep your eyes open and read around - you will be surprised at the varying "results" different sites will have. The personal experience of someone you know that has hands on experience will be more valuable than 100 internet reviews.

 

[Overclocked]

Agreed, Tom's used to be very unbiased and was a great resource, but it didn't take long before he (they) were bought off. A lot of reviews are clearly regurgitated marketing material, and are commonly paged to double-digit levels for no obvious reason (other than to increase advert exposure).

To back up Overclocked, I am also a fan of AMD. Their newest dual-core CPU's are my current recommendation to folks, and I have one in my development machine - as I would never recommend something I didn't own or use myself.

So, like OC noted, keep your eyes open and read around - you will be surprised at the varying "results" different sites will have. The personal experience of someone you know that has hands on experience will be more valuable than 100 internet reviews.

Those Varying results (if your talking 100 to 200Mhz) Maybe because of the core, even though its the same Stepping, amongst other factors. But if you mean a difference of 500Mz + between sites, then you may have a crappy site.

Although, Some people have said that with My Athlon XP with a A7V600 mobo I couldnt overclock and some sites said that too (but mind you- They were minor sites-not major sites) But Ive managed to have up to a 800Mhz Overclock! I figured I must have gotten a really good core.

OH one more site to stay away from- A1 Electronics. I swear, the reviews on the FX-60 were so hudgepudge! Basically it was like "We Dont have the chip, so you shouldnt get it" kinda of thing.

It was also hilarious at the same time. There was also a review on the Noctua U-12, I belong to PCapex, in which they and ever other site had pretty much the same result. But A1's review was complete BS.

ADD- On 2nd thought- Go with Socket AM2, The benchmarks are lookin pretty good!
**broken link removed**

 

[ParkingLotLust]

If youre looking for top-notch video and image editing, and the like, go with an Intel. If youre looking for gaming, then go with an AMD. Also, if you have a bigger budget, go with an Intel. Ive owned some older AMD chips and had nothing but problems. Just personal opinion tho.

 

[Marks256]

I know this is late, but i would recommend AMD. AMD has more of a stable internal structure. Intel is loosing thier touch on things. AMD rocks!

 

[ParkingLotLust]

Just wait until the Core Duo 2 is released. All you AMD fanboys will be left wimpering behind your FX-62's.

 

[Marks256]

You would think so, wouldn't you? NO SIR! Once an AMD fan, always an AMD fan! AMD; live long, live fast, live in style!

 

[Overclocked]

667.6Mhz=HA Intel is evil!

Just wait until the Core Duo 2 is released. All you AMD fanboys will be left wimpering behind your FX-62's.

HA! AMD Laughs in your face! Just wait until Socket F! You'll be right back on your asses!

jk, You dont know how many times people have debated about this topic. There is no clear winner, just depends on what you want to do. But hey, That doesnt mean you cant have fun with it! (for those who dont know what to think, Think of it like a sports game)

 

[ParkingLotLust]

Haha, right now AMD is king, but Intel will be when they release their new proc, then AMD will be back up and the cycle just repeats, theres never an overall winner for more than a year or so

 

[Overclocked]

Haha, right now AMD is king, but Intel will be when they release their new proc, then AMD will be back up and the cycle just repeats, theres never an overall winner for more than a year or so

ACTUALLY, (i hate intel, and it loathes me to say this..) Conroe Is king, There is also rumor of a Quad Core CPU, But AMD has plans for that too, So Alot of stuff is going around.

But did you know AMD droped their prices Yesterday? Chips used to cost around 500+, Now its Half that . Im still running on an Athlon XP, Im glad I waited to upgrade, but with this rig, I can still play games like FEAR, Q4..etc

 

[Marks256]

I would like a Phyzics card. I probley spelt that wrong, but that is how i think they spell it. Actually, AMD dropped their prices about 1\2 a month or so ago. I also heard that AMD is looking into Quad Core. Intel will be so heart broken! Man, i can hear them crying now like little french school girls! And just think; Quad core, Dual processer(AMD), nVIDIA GeFORCE BFG SLI w/ 1gb of memory, Oooh yah! Nothin' like blowing the crap out of an oponent while running an AMD CPU and nVIDIA graphics! Ooooh Ooooh! Ahh! Stop drooling on your keyboard! The future is near....

 

[audioguru]

My Intel Overdrive 486-100 was very quick when running Win3.1, slower when running Win98. It had cache from a Pentium in it.
My Pentium4-2.93GHz is pretty quick but not extremely fast when running WinXP-Home.

 

[Overclocked]

My Intel Overdrive 486-100 was very quick when running Win3.1, slower when running Win98. It had cache from a Pentium in it.
My Pentium4-2.93GHz is pretty quick but not extremely fast when running WinXP-Home.

<sarcasim>I think no matter what proc your using, windows will always be slow

 

[Marks256]

<sarcasim>I think no matter what proc your using, windows will always be slow

I agree with you 100%!


The thing i hate most about intel processers, is they have so much speed, but such a small cache, that the speed isn't shown! I got a 2.6ghz Intel Celeron for free(from the trash, seriously), and it only had a 128l2 cache! I would expect something like; 256, or 512 would be nice. Or 1mb. But no; 128! That sucks! Amd is all speed and chache(along with alot of style!)

 

[Overclocked]

I agree with you 100%!


The thing i hate most about intel processers, is they have so much speed, but such a small cache, that the speed isn't shown! I got a 2.6ghz Intel Celeron for free(from the trash, seriously), and it only had a 128l2 cache! I would expect something like; 256, or 512 would be nice. Or 1mb. But no; 128! That sucks! Amd is all speed and chache(along with alot of style!)

The actual Mani difference between the 2 is Pipelines. AMD has A hell of a lot more pipelines than intel does.

 

[Exo]

I'd say conroe for the moment!

I have a E6300 (eng. sample) and it hits 4Ghz on air ! with my 975 intel badaxe board (with some mods to the board as it isnt really overclocking friendly out of the box)

At this speed it's puts a 5 times more expensive FX62 to shame

AMD will probably strike back tho, they have to, it keeps prices low

 

[Exo]

I agree with you 100%!


The thing i hate most about intel processers, is they have so much speed, but such a small cache, that the speed isn't shown! I got a 2.6ghz Intel Celeron for free(from the trash, seriously), and it only had a 128l2 cache! I would expect something like; 256, or 512 would be nice. Or 1mb. But no; 128! That sucks! Amd is all speed and chache(along with alot of style!)

that's why it is a celeron !
celeron's are meant to be cheap, and what takes op the most die space on a cpu ? exactly ! cache !

so, how do you make cheap cpu's ? you cut the cache and reduce transistor count from 150 million to 80 million in a flash.

if there's one make that uses large caches to overcome the flaws in its frontside bus architecture then its intel. Conroe will even have a massive 4MB of cache !

AMD, on the other hand uses relatively small caches because their IMC (integrated memory controller) offers low latency access directly to system memory.

 

[Exo]

If youre looking for top-notch video and image editing, and the like, go with an Intel. If youre looking for gaming, then go with an AMD. Also, if you have a bigger budget, go with an Intel. Ive owned some older AMD chips and had nothing but problems. Just personal opinion tho.

Must be very old then, modern AMD's are fully compatible..
Better still, AMD64 is the standard setter now, intel is playing catchup (EM64T beeing a copy of AMD64, even the spelling errors are duplicated from AMD's documents into Intel's documents).

If you're talking about K6/K7, most of the problems came from bad chipsets.
Both VIA and SiS, the only 2 companies making chipsets for K6/K7 in the beginning were relatively new to creating chipsets without intel holding their hands.