Amd Or Intel

[Storm]

im gonna be buying a new comp soon, and i was wondering which CPU brand to go with......

i want to:
1) do graphic work (Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, ect) while running soulseek and eMule and play music
2) play movies while running soulseek and eMule

i want to know where the performance differences are with these 2 brands

ive checked most treads on this board on the subject, but they all end in flame wars...... google either gives me AMD's view or Intel's view, or only general statistics (not the diffrences i want 2 c)

[racer II]

Lol well i know for sure that one will say amd is better and the other will say intel is better.
I build 2 amd systems and both run nice and are fast so i like amd. But i could have done the same with intel.

[Mad Cat]

AMD - Generally cheaper, 64 bit will also improve nearly half performance on top of current benchmarks
Intel - Generally more expensive, generally better for encoding and applications, higher clock rates (they do not mean better performance)

[Virtualbody1234]

Both are fine CPU's but the AMD is a better buy. It has a better power to dollar ratio.

[clocker]

I have only built AMD based comps and, frankly, it's a money issue.

I'd like to try an Intel chip just to see for myself.

[abu_has_the_power]

intel cpu's have stronger raw power. amds are cheaper. my current cpu is performing a lot better than a athlonxp 3200

[Storm]

well thing is, a friend (no computer expert, but knows a lil bit) of mine told me intel is better at multitasking than amd....... or at least, thats what he heard :P

@ abu: i dont doubt that, seeing as you have OC-ed your intel to 3.2GHz

[Lamsey]

Originally posted by Storm@9 April 2004 - 22:06
well thing is, a friend (no computer expert, but knows a lil bit) of mine told me intel is better at multitasking than amd....... or at least, thats what he heard :P

@ abu: i dont doubt that, seeing as you have OC-ed your intel to 3.2GHz
That might be true in a few areas if you're talking about a high-end Intel chip with hyperthreading capabilities. But to be honest the only way you can really tell the difference between two equivalent AMD/Intel CPUs is with a benchmark test - or by looking at the price tag.

[abu_has_the_power]

Originally posted by Lamsey+9 April 2004 - 19:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lamsey @ 9 April 2004 - 19:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Storm@9 April 2004 - 22:06
well thing is, a friend (no computer expert, but knows a lil bit) of mine told me intel is better at multitasking than amd....... or at least, thats what he heard :P

@ abu: i dont doubt that, seeing as you have OC-ed your intel to 3.2GHz
That might be true in a few areas if you&#39;re talking about a high-end Intel chip with hyperthreading capabilities. But to be honest the only way you can really tell the difference between two equivalent AMD/Intel CPUs is with a benchmark test - or by looking at the price tag. [/b][/quote]
been there done that. my friends got a 64bit athlon fx3200, and he has pc3200 ram as well. we ran sisoftsandra, and my comp did better than his. it&#39;s :wacko:, but true.

[cpt_azad]

amd is cheap and 64 bit can&#39;t go wrong
intel is fast and packs quiet a punch, but a little bit more expensive than amd

i&#39;d got wit intel.

[delphin460]

for the requests in your initial post, anything will do

those arnt very high end reuirements

a amd 2500 will do the job fine

and then get yourself a great gfx card

rther than spend to much on 64 bit, when its well above what u need

[Amarjit]

I&#39;d say wait - because if you&#39;re willing to move onto the 64-bit platform, AMD are rumoured to release a new 3700+ chip. Also, it will be 939-pin rather than 940, meaning no necessity to buy ECC Registered DDR RAM.

However, for the time being, you mention that one of your primary uses of your PC will be video decoding - this is where the Pentium betters. AMD is generally better in 2D, but for what you&#39;re outlining, I&#39;d get a P4, around 2.6GHz+, perhaps one of the 3.2/3.06/3.0? I wouldn&#39;t bother with the Prescott extensions ATM. Also, depending on the quantity of RAM you desire, choose between 533/800MHz FSB.

[abu_has_the_power]

i&#39;d wait for the 64 bit intels.

[Virtualbody1234]

Your requirements are not very demanding. Just get the AMD Athlon XP 2500+. For around &#036;100 there is nothing from Intel that can offer that power for that price.

[Mad Cat]

Originally posted by abu_has_the_power@10 April 2004 - 16:37
i&#39;d wait for the 64 bit intels.
Intel has stated it is not yet interested in a 64bit desktop chip. You&#39;ll be waiting till at least the next Pentium for that, Prescott is what Intel has been working at for a long time hence they probably won&#39;t make their next big product till &#39;05.

[DWk]

Too much hassle over two great products ;)

[Mïcrösöül°V³]

i have a P4 3.0ghz HT, and it cost me about 190 bucks. little more costly than AMD, but i like intel.

[J'Pol]

AMD XP for me.

Purely on power to cost ratio.

The important thing to remember is get a good balanced system. No point in shed loads of processor power if it&#39;s short on RAM.