I would go with AMD, mainly because they are always there to 1-up Intel...Not to mention the unbelievable FSB speeds you get compared to intel...I was actually kind of excited to hear about the AMD-ATI merger, simply because, with the processing power of AMD, ATI now has a promising future, and may some day convince me to buy their hardware....
this is how it works, IBM subcontracted AMD to make clones of intel's 8086CPU. AMD was always behind until 96 when it released it's own design the K5 which was better than the Pentium 1s of the time in terms of interger eprformance, but offered poor FP performance, inte's pentium --- was better though. K6 was a bit more moderate and gave the PentiumII a run for it's money. k7(aka athlon) pretty much destroyed the Pentium IIIs. It even beat the early P4s voerall, then the Athlon XPs Were onpar with the later willmatte P4s. The northwood P4s gave intel the advantage again, though a highly overclocked mobiel athlon XP was still a good processor and beat the P4s in many cases. Then the athlon 64(K8) was launched and it was on par with th Northwood based CPUs of the time. Intel's next revision, prescott wasn't any faster than the last and didn't scale in MHz well. Presscot scaled 800mhz higher than northwood. Meanwhile in AMD land, AMD increased the speed fo it's chip form 1.8GHz to 3.0GHz over the course of a few years, whiel increasing the A64s performance/Mhz. Overall the athloon 64s killed the P4s, especially on multicore systems. then intel got it's act together and launched a pentium 3/ Pentium 4 hybrid, known as Core 2. It overclocks better than anythign AMD ever made. It runs mroe efficiently than AMDs products. It's released at higher MHz, and it has more performance/mhz. right now Intel has the lead. In 6 months, with K8L, who knows it will be close. Before that intel will launch peryn which will scale to higher mhz than conroe. Then one year after K8L is out Intel will launch nehalem, a netburst like chip which will replaced C2d, then AMd will launch Fusion. in short, AMD only is able to one up intel when intel F's up badly and gets a few years behind schedule on launching new products. Intel just has more resources. Intel is evil though. ============ also, AMD has a 0MHz FSB, namely it doesn't have one. It has a hypere transport bus which is far rmeo efficient. Also, ATi had a better market possition at the time of the merger than AMD did, they were actually in the lead fo their competetor. =========== what I'm hoping for - I hope K8l kicks ass and is cheap to make. I home peryn scales to 4.5GHz on air. I hope nehalem scales to 8GHz under water and I hope fuzion has insane FPU performance.
My only real problem with AMD is the fact that most of their processors do not withstand overclocking very well at all, especially the Duron, it just couldn't deal with the heat...
Durons are no longer even produced, so what does it matter. Also, athlons run cooler so that's a mute issue. and as for OCing,I've seen someone take a 1.4GHz sempron to 2.8GHz so they can't be that bad. Current dual core CPUs on the AMD side often overclock to 2.6-3.1GHz on stock voltage under air. my last ssytem was an opteron 165 system, stock voltage for it was 1.35V and I got it to 2.6GHz from 1.8GHz with only 1.264V
I was not actually aware of the most recent advances in AMD's OCing abilities, I was just going by what I know... I have a Sempron 3400 +, basically AMD's Celeron... (Celeron, the ----ty consumer friendly processor...haha) what would you say the extent of its oc ability would be?
hmm atm i would have to say intel just cause of the C2D but we will see when AMD comes out with a new chip.
Celeron Ds are based on the enetburst architecture which is VERY sensative to the amount of l2 cache the CPU has. A regular Pentium 4 had 2mb l2 cache, a Celeron D has 256kb. HUGE performance hit. AMD's K8 chips are designed to not be as cache dependant and they have an integrated memory controller in them which further reduces the need for cache. In short, semprons kill the celerons worse than the athlon kill the P4s. in a fair amount of scenarios, semprons are even better than p4s. http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=61&type=expert&pid=5 note that the Celereon had DDR2 which fared better in the tests hence the better memory performance, if they both used the same RAM, the sempron would have had better memory performance due to its IMC.
because that's fanboyism... applies on the AMD side as well. As for me, I don't know who I like more anymore, most peopel accused me of being an AMD fanboy a few months ago, now I'm supposedly an Intel fanboy and I personally don't care who has the better product as long as I can get it at a decent price(which AMD has traditionally been better about)
Personally, I like intel more because currently they have the better product. When AMD makes a better product, I will like them (Unless im not building a comp, then I just wont care). PS. Xelink, you on MSN?
Just wondering, why was another of this ----ing retarded threads made? There must be like 6 of the same god damn things in this section.
