I still like the way windows 'feels' on an intel over a faster AMD 32 or 64 on any socket. Probably something to do with the compilers that are used. I dont notice the same subjective performance difference under Linux for example, where the AMDs are very snappy.
Since the AMD processors have shorter pipelines, this makes no sense to me, and is likely to cause befuddlement to any readers.
Intels are great and all, but my Athlon is far more stable. I've a P4 3.0ghz with HT, versus an Barton 3200+, one with a gig of ram the other with a gig & a half, and the Athlon is more stable in windows and in gaming. Thats why people choose AMD, oh and they were half the price of their competitors
Dave
I'm glad you read my post, because that reply would have been totally useless if I'd written chipset isntead of chip.Originally Posted by specofdust
Oh wai
Mythology.
If Intel chipsets are so great why are they making such a big deal out of NForce4 chipsets for Intel platforms?
In answer to the original question, Dell still builds with them I believe. They're not having as much luck selling them though. They can't give the Celerons away. People are starting to wake up and smell the silicon!
Sorry but i prefer AMD's 64's even though they lack hyperthreading they still pack enough punch to kick intels backside comparing processor to processor eg. athlon 3200+ and the P4 3.2GHz.
They also seem to be more stable in a non windows environment eg Linux than the intel's and i have yet to figure out why. Also you can get most of the popular games to run on linux using transgaming, and occasionally they run faster as well.
your computer is similar to a fridge in that if it cannot keep a beer cold then it sucks
I read today Dell are dropping Itaniums from their line. Thin end of the wedge perhaps.
Dothans tho I do like for building portable CAD workstations.
I personally use a 3.2 P4 Northwood running @ 3.6 for day-day stuff. We also have a couple of AMD 3200 systems which are equally as reliable, but just don't seem as responsive (to me) as the 3.2 P4's in use. Now I've not benched anything, it's just thro many many hours of usage.
But having said all that, I love my Opteron home rig, cool, quiet & more powerful than I actually need.
Last edited by 0iD; 19-09-2005 at 08:15 PM.
[
My school IT technician said he built a system with an Intel and a 7800GTX :| . I think we sometimes forget that people on forums like this one tend to actually know what is good and what is not, whilst most people go for whatever is on offer at PC World. Intel have much more brand loyalty from the major system builders Dell HP etc which is where the maain desktop funds really come from.
I have a feeling that the new set of Intel chips will actually be rather top notch.
Dell only has brand loyalty because Intel will not allow Dell to use AMD. Intel can't get away with that with HP because they are much bigger than Dell.
That's why my Compaq Presario has a Turion64 in it.
Dell needs to tell Intel to shove it!
I've yet to find any of this instability on a windows box with any AMD system since the really bad chipset days (ali), which were universally unstable (even in the BIOS with AGP grahpics cards!).
The only OS i've found instability is purely distro centric.
for instance, NetBSD was running happily on my eden 533 machine (via eden cpu) now, the next version of NetBSD stopped working, it simply reboots during the install process.
Funny thing is, i've never had issues with NT installing it on other chipsets. But i've with most distros, except debian.
As for why work != AMD. Its due to bad chipsets in the 95 to 00 time, there were some horrifically unstable ones. Not to mention Win9x didn't like them much either (but thats a horrifically bad OS).
Its funny how the fanboyism is kicking in, there is one clear cut fact which people can't denay. AMD was an economy option in the K5, and K6. But the point is you got such a better bang for your buck, you could afford the next speed up! Intel have always had a better grade of chipset during this time, even thou they brought the slot in, which seams to have a hudge fataility rate. As such Intel are more trusted.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Yes all the comments about the chipsets of AMD's in the past are right. I had a nightmare with an AMD 1 Ghz system with a VIA based motherboard which died everytime I plugged a USB adsl modem into it and downloaded faster than 34 Kb/s
Saying that.... Nvidia then came along and released the nforce2 range of chipsets and the features of this chipset range has been nothing short of outstanding. Nforce3 was released and now we have nforce4 for the AMD64 range which I feel is the best chipset for this platform at the present time.
I think if you look to the advent of IT to businesses and homes circa 1998 - the Internet Christening so to speak, you can see that the early P3 was by far the performer of the time - its legacy can stil be seen in the P-M.
At this stage AMD was in the middle of its K6 architecture. While grat for overclocking, and giving birth to the AMD enthusiast cult of the time, the chips simply couldn't get to the level of Intel - especially with the limitations of Socket 7.
This didnt appeal to businesses...the more bang for buck the better and I the branding of that particular stage in computing history has stayed with a lot of long-term tekkies. One example was my old IT manager in a previous position I held - he was a Dell/Intel fanatic - he wouldn't dare touch AMD regardless of the capabilities the new 64 chips had...not even opterons for the servers, and the savings when compared to desktop P4s.
There is a time for change of course. Business directories (PCWorld Business) for example have taken more of AMD based OEM systems into advertising. NEC (the systems that my new job uses) have a whole range based on the Venice core A64 chips. I also intend to exchange the servers over (happening later this month) with some opteron systems. The bang/buck ratio is now by far better than anytime for AMD, so things may well change. There are of course the hardware advantages of lower temperatures, inbuilt memory controllers, and good flexibility and choice...not to mention price competitivness on the mianstream area.
The current issue however is with Intel and the mass market monopoly that they have with the OEM companies (through certain reward systems which is currently been looked at in a certain court case). Business/home users don't have a choice when faced with say - a double page spread in the Daily Mail of PCWorlds latest bargains. Only once in a blue moon do I see an AMD system on there - and even then its usually a low grade Sempron...not once have I seen a high speed or an FX in an OEM.
I'm looking to get myself a new desktop system and i'm probably going to go with intel. I've never actually had an Intel desktop machine but i have had an athlon 64 machine with nothing but problems. I admit it was probably the asus A8V that died on me twice causing problems but i'm just not willing to spend the time on AMD again.
I just upgraded from an AMD 3500+/nforce4 to an Intel Dual Core 3.0ghz/955X, and im truly impressed.
Stability is far superior, and encoding times are extremely impressive (What I mainly use my system for).
I suffered many probs with the AMD setup, mainly due to the array of components I use.. (13 H/d's, 6 x 400gb raid 5 (2TB), aswell as 4 raptors, and a few others, TV card, 2 Gig 2-2-5-2 Geil Ultra-X ram).. most componentas refused to work happily together. I even tried 3 different nforce4 motherboards, 2 x asus, and 1 x gigabyte (best of the 3 imo).
The switch to Intel has seen everything work in harmony.
As for price/performance, the intel dual cores are priced very competitevly, and a must have for ppl who do a lotta encoding
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
