View Full Version : AMD or Intel for Performance
01-22-2004, 11:16 PM
> I was just wondering which is the better processor,
> I know many people who prefer AMD, but overall,
> which processor performs higher, AMD or Pentium 4?
> From the AMD 2000 to the 3000 XP and the Intel
> equivalent. I really need to know what processor
> to buy, thank you and also keep up the good work
> with your products, you have the best benchmark
> Regards, Gary. A satisfied client.
An easy question but a not so easy answer. Intel have traditionally been slightly ahead in terms of performance. But AMD have been better in terms of performance per dollar (i.e. they are often better value). It also depends on the software you run most of the time.
You might want to have a look at the graphs here,
In my opinion it is better to save some money on the CPU and spend it on a faster hard drive or a bigger screen. For me I notice a fast hard drive more than a fast CPU (but I don't do a lot of gaming) and would prefer my dual LCD screens over a fast CPU any day.
02-02-2004, 09:32 AM
intel 32bit whollop AMD 32bit...
amd 64bit whollop intel 64bit(whollop??? gee im only 14 nd im starting to get old)
u get a P4 800FSB and it will eat up any Athlon...
athlon are cheaper, but they have less performance.
it is not worth buying any Athlon above 2500+...if you were considering it, you would have to get a Intel 2.6C instead!(which is honestly roughly the equvielnt of a AMD 3200+ in *MANY* benchmarks...
but if u r looking a little bit more highend then you would go AMD64...
12-29-2004, 03:43 PM
The choice between Pentium and AMD is difficult. Have a look at reviews found in Tom's hardware guide and similar to get a feel for the differences between the processors.
To be plain, if you are using word processing and other office software, P4 is the best option.
However, if you are looking for gaming and other 3D performance, AMD beats Pentium in almost all sectors, whether in the Athlon or 64 bit lines.
AMD has taken the lead in overall performance with the latest 64 bit processors, though they are very expensive.
I have built a very satisfying machine, though it is getting out dated:
Athlon 2500+ Barton core
ASUS A7N8X-X Deluxe MB
Radeon 9000 Pro video card
Maxtor 9 SATA HD
Again, this machine works for my needs, but may not correspond to what you are looking for. I have built 3 or 4 computers and it is not very complicated. There is a considerable advantage in evolution against a brand name computer such as HP or Dell. If you have even a little experience with computers, give it a try. You will find helpful information in Tom's hardware guide and similar web sites that will coach you with the selection of hardware and even the assembling of your computer.
When you purchase your material, be extremely careful as to the material you chose. I recommend buying ASUS, Abit, Gygabyte, and similar brands as they have high fabrication standards, long experience, and extensive support. They cost more money but the difference in system stability makes them well worth it. Be especially careful for the motherboard and system memory. these two factors will determine the overall performance of your system. If you are a gamer, chose a big name in your video card, even if you don't by their high end product.
I hope this helps! :!:
09-18-2005, 09:28 AM
David maybe you can help with this.. I know the Amd FX-55 and FX-57 should be in your chart and as pickable in the baseline list but Amd has like 3 names for everything they make.. example my cpu is all of the following
Sledgehammer (clawhammer) depends where you look it up
sometimes just listed as AMD64 Athlon
the other AMD fun is the model number of the chip and the speed of a chip don't always match..
I'm sure you know but someone else out thier might not.. and I'm not sure myself or I would not need to ask
I got this CPU just before the release of the FX-57 - cost was about $800 I was pretty sure it was the top of the Amd line.. but it clocks at 2.6mz
What is it a Turkey a Treasure??? any ideas
09-19-2005, 12:06 PM
On the baseline download page we list the AMD chips using the information stored in the CPU.
So typical current CPUs are,
AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3700+
AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3400+
AMD Athlon(tm) 64 FX-55 Processor
AMD Athlon(tm) 64 FX-57 Processor
Mobile AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3400+
AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4400+
11-11-2005, 05:33 AM
I'm probably in the wrong place for this comment, but here goes: forget all them benchmark scores.
In my home office I currently have switched on:
1 AMD Athlon 64 3800+
1 AMD Athlon 64 X2 (Dual Core) 4400+
1 Pentium 3.2Ghz with Hyperthreading
1 Pentium 2.8Ghz with Hyperthreading
1 Pentium 1.8Ghz
1 Mac G4 Dual CPU 1Ghz
So I figure I have at least a modicum of experience with current, though somewhat moderate, desktop platforms. And yes, speakerphone is impossible because of the fan noise.
My opinion: IF you are a gamer, then believe the hype and get an AMD. If you primarily use business applications, get the Intel with hyperthreading. The more you multitask applications the more you're going to want to move up in scale with hyperthreading and dual core/dual CPU machines, though if it is just moderate multi-tasking you really don't see much benefit from dual core over hyperthreading. Hyperthreading is a cool trick that works. Games are single-threaded, so the AMD shines there, but get that same AMD into a multi-tasking environment like Windows and you won't have to wish you were dead, you soon will be from old age waiting for applications to finish.
03-30-2006, 09:30 PM
My AMD Opteron 165 (1.8GHz) Wipes the floor of my P4 Prescott 3.0 GHz in single tread performance (HT Off on the P4 and One core used on the OPTI) yet it is clocked 1200Mhz lower and gets the same or better performance don't know what Rice007 in the first reply is talking about. AMD ROCKS!!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.