I'm an AMD fan myself. I've never had any problems. And I did when I had an Intel. So It's my personal preference.
since when? 1998 was a long time ago. as for the person who said AMD is more reliable, Intel designs their processors to last signifiacnty longer so that's bull, but by the time an AMD chip dies it would still be about 4 years past obselescence. at this time, AMD has a huge performance lead in terms of sheer clock speed. Intel's core duo only goes up to 2.1Ghz while the athlon X2/fx goes all the way up to 2.6 ghz, not to mention the fact that AMD's chips are quite a bit cheaper at this moment. Don't mention the Pentium Ds & Pentium Extreme Editions, because they are crap, you'd need a 4.0-5.0 ghz PD(which does not exist and would be about 10 grand if it did) or PXE to match the 2.6Ghz athlon FX 60. and parusa you are an idiot, clock speed doesn't mean everything, the core architecture of a pentium 4 based chip is utter crap, they have 31 step pipelines while the athlons have a 12 step pipeline. This means that they can easily hit higher clock speeds, but they are more vulnerable to errors, if you had a 10Ghz chip and 90% of it's Ghz were wasted flushing the pipeline it would not even come close to matching a 2.2 Ghz athlon which mantains most of it's clocks due to relatively low error vulnerability. for intel, get the 2.1 Ghz core duo if you can get a hold of it, they are hard to get because they are being snatched up really fast by PC manufactures and are about 50% more expensive than their AMD equivilents. for AMD try to get an Opertron 165 or higher or an athlon X2. http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList....ry=1028&Ntk=all FYI, the person who said gaming was improved by a dual core chip was wrong, you get better gaming/$ on a single core chip, but even the relatively cheap athlon X2 3800+ can handle any game for the next few years on max and general use is far nicer on dual core. and to those wondering, I have used both modern chips from AMD and intel, I have an athlon 64 3000+ on my home PC(will be upgrading to either an opertron 165 or a core duo sometime next year) and I use 2.8Ghz P4s at school, despite the school comps having mroe ram, I notice faster boot times at home and general use is more or less the same despite Intels claim as general use king in the single core market.
lol there are millions of these conversations and it is simple the winner is always AMD but now what do you buy??? i got a msi platinum and it is not bad for it's value my bro has a gigabyte and it is brilliant the asus is also a brilliant motherboard
FYI, Darkstars article is outdated, they used the 3.4Ghz pentium extreme edition against the 2.4ghz Athlon X2 4800+, since then the athlon FX60 came out which is at 2.6Ghz so EVERYTHING goes to AMD for the time including general use.
I have an Asus a8n-e and its a good mobo also, go for AMD..as everyone says nowadays.. See other polls: AMD 39 - Intel 9 AMD vs Intel discussion 1 AMD 37 votes - 2 Intel combined 7 votes Obviously, AMD is more highly rated, liked, whatever. Best for gaming.
you have to admit, if you only do video encoding, the P4 is pretty good... too bad it blows for mostly everything else.
Really... if you define "blowing" as in a-very-tiny-bit-not-the-same. I don't know into detail how a cpu works, but I have done about everything you can do with it software based and I play all the latest games on prety high settings with a 9800 pro running on 4x AGP. And I haven't even noticed I'm using a 3 year old 2.00Ghz Pentium. And if I buy a new computer, I will choose another Pentium. This guy here wants a gaming machine. Single core > dual in gaming. Still everyone is talking about the dual core difference. This topic basicly comes down to a matter of taste. I seem stuborn ? Sure, I just hate the fact that it's cool to prefer AMD. If you have a look on the official AMD site itself. you will notice they don't even mention a very big difference.
I'm sorry to say that Dual core processors beat out single core processors in newer games like Quake 4, Call of Duty 2, F.E.A.R. and other new games of the sort. Single cores are better for older games ... but who cares about old games.
It's pretty much what you are used to. If you have Intel and like it, stick with it. It’s the same with AMD chipsets. It's like Ford vs. Chevy. All it does is start an argument in the end.
[/quote] Intel discontinued the pentium name because of negative association after people started dogging them take a look at benchmarks, AMDs in a single core environment game better. in a dual core envirmoent, P4s/Pds need more bandwidth and the processors FSB and ram isn't fast enough this time and as mreo cores are added this will only be more true. I don't know if you noticed anything but since 2003 when you bought your proc, intels clock speeds went up by 800mhz and AMDs went up by 1000mhz YET, this is a 50% increase on an athlon in terms of clock speed and only a 30% increase on a P4. again... parusa BENCHMARKS!!!! http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?mod...05&chart=62 then compare the prices, a 300$ x2 3800+ outperforms the $1000 3.2Ghz PXE on every test which wasn't designed by intel and comes close on those that were kind of sad... not to mention the fact that it runs significantly cooler. the glorious days of northwood are gone and prescott is crap.
You see ... I am one of the few people who own an Intel and hate it. It is not very good for gaming and I game alot. Sure, I can run any game on maximum settings ... but I have a top of the line graphics card and 1.5 GB of RAM ... get way lower scores on 3D mark and lower FPS than people with lower GHz Athlons or with less RAM even ... face the facts people ... GHz don't mean anything anymore.
Ok, I'll accept the fact that time has stopped moving around my desk. But Intel has mentioned they are planning to have a 20% performance advantage with their new Conroe en Merom chips compared to the AMD chips appearing somewhere around the same time. Without using point-to-point interconnects. If AMD went ahead of Intel, Intel can do the same thing again. But with all the AMD is better because it's AMD talk around, I'm thinking not too many people would accept it.
I heard bout this I believe, I still dont think they will be better than AMD's. If they are not by much. Thats just my opinion as of yet, I dont know that much about them yet, we will have to see when they come out. If they do end up beating out AMD, then awesome.. Then I can admit, Intel > Amd. Any clue when these come out? Q3 of 06?
