I know that apple is moving to intel, but I'm just curious, if you had to get a windoz Peecee, would you go the AMD or intel route? Intel is certainly the bigger company, but I've heard people say AMDs are superior, and I recently saw that they come with a standard 1600 MHz FSB, which is double intels standard, and even 250 MHz faster than the 2.7 GHz PPC G5. Just curious, what's your guys/girls opinions?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AMD or Intel?
- Thread starter switchr92
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Philosphically, AMD 64
Practically; the POS AMD 64 machine I bought locally failed after 2 weeks so I bought a dual-core P4 from Dell
that was cheaper and has run like a top ever since.
Note to self: Scratch Seanix off list of reliable brand names.
Practically; the POS AMD 64 machine I bought locally failed after 2 weeks so I bought a dual-core P4 from Dell
that was cheaper and has run like a top ever since.Note to self: Scratch Seanix off list of reliable brand names.
If you intend to game on it, then get an AMD.
Intel CPUs generally have an edge in content creation (image and movie editing), and a kind of simulated dual-CPU setup called HyperThreading. It can in some cases make the system as a whole a bit more responsive (note: it's just from what I've read. Never owned an HT enabled Intel myself). Of course, if you have the cash, you could just get a dualcore AMD, and Intel suddenly have much much less of an advantage.
For most other stuff, it won't really matter that much. You can potentially get a cooler and quieter system if you use a recent AMD versus a recent Pentium (excluding the Pentium M), since the AMD chips are much cooler (less need for noisy fans), and draw less power.
Bought a Athlon64 X2 4400+/2x2.2GHz recently (which replaced a Athlon64 3200+/2.0GHz). Couldn't be happier with it.
Disclamer: The last Intel I owned was a Pentium MMX, and I've used AMD's since then, so I could possibly be a bit biased (though I try not to be).
Edit:
CanadaRAM: Seawhat? Never heard of it.
I've had no issues with my Athlon64 (nor my Athlon64 X2) and it's on 24/7.
Intel CPUs generally have an edge in content creation (image and movie editing), and a kind of simulated dual-CPU setup called HyperThreading. It can in some cases make the system as a whole a bit more responsive (note: it's just from what I've read. Never owned an HT enabled Intel myself). Of course, if you have the cash, you could just get a dualcore AMD, and Intel suddenly have much much less of an advantage.
For most other stuff, it won't really matter that much. You can potentially get a cooler and quieter system if you use a recent AMD versus a recent Pentium (excluding the Pentium M), since the AMD chips are much cooler (less need for noisy fans), and draw less power.
Bought a Athlon64 X2 4400+/2x2.2GHz recently (which replaced a Athlon64 3200+/2.0GHz). Couldn't be happier with it.
Disclamer: The last Intel I owned was a Pentium MMX, and I've used AMD's since then, so I could possibly be a bit biased (though I try not to be).
Edit:
CanadaRAM: Seawhat?
Never heard of it.I've had no issues with my Athlon64 (nor my Athlon64 X2) and it's on 24/7.
I have a athlon 64 3500 that runs at 2.2. ghz for you Macheads. Its been solid. Runs cooler then the Intels.
Intel. i've always used intels myself, all my mates go with AMD but their systems are pretty crappy. they're running those XP 2000+ or whatever. not too expensive not too cheap. in summary
Tom: selling his AMD and motherboard for a P4 and intel motherboard
Caroline (my girlfriend): only has an AMD cuz her mum isn't all that rich and made her a system. high specis; low quality. really she wants a mactel, but realistically is after a P4 for the moment.
pete and maria: running 2 AMD machines. they say AMD are absolutely terrible for video editing compared to the intel range.
where Windows is concerned I wouldnt go for anything other than P4 with HyperThreading.
Tom: selling his AMD and motherboard for a P4 and intel motherboard
Caroline (my girlfriend): only has an AMD cuz her mum isn't all that rich and made her a system. high specis; low quality. really she wants a mactel, but realistically is after a P4 for the moment.
pete and maria: running 2 AMD machines. they say AMD are absolutely terrible for video editing compared to the intel range.
where Windows is concerned I wouldnt go for anything other than P4 with HyperThreading.
If you are really curious use the CPU charts at Tom's Hardware Guide to select a comparison of CPU's and multiple programs and games to find out what is best for your needs. http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html
I prefer AMD because of the better price performance ratio for gaming. If I was doing video/audio or anything else I would go with an intel dual core (ignoring the fact that I would never concede to do audio/video on a Windows box, unless MS made Windows better than Mac OS X in the future).
Short Rant,
How come Apple stopped using System for their OS names. I preferred saying System 7 rather than Mac OS. It just sounded more technical and intellectual. I don't know about you but I would rather say System "X" than Mac OS 10.
I prefer AMD because of the better price performance ratio for gaming. If I was doing video/audio or anything else I would go with an intel dual core (ignoring the fact that I would never concede to do audio/video on a Windows box, unless MS made Windows better than Mac OS X in the future).
Short Rant,
How come Apple stopped using System for their OS names. I preferred saying System 7 rather than Mac OS. It just sounded more technical and intellectual. I don't know about you but I would rather say System "X" than Mac OS 10.
amd.
and get an abit motherboard.
fwiw here's my amd system: venice core 3500+, abit an8 motherboard, msi x800 with 256mb vram, 2gb pny pc3200 ram, and a 300gb hard drive
and get an abit motherboard.
fwiw here's my amd system: venice core 3500+, abit an8 motherboard, msi x800 with 256mb vram, 2gb pny pc3200 ram, and a 300gb hard drive
I think it really depends on what is complementing the processor in the computer (motherboard, video card, etc). If you put together a processor such as intel with a motherboard whose company designs while consulting with intel such as asus (if I recall correctly) it will work better than using a moboard from ECS and an intel, conversly using an AMD with an MSI would give you the same effect as the intel-asus combo. All other things equal, I would personally chose AMD because their processor architecture is actually better designed than intels.
MHO
AMD. Every PC I've built since the 486 (last Intel processor I owned) has had an AMD in it.
There will always be an AMD powered PC in my home, but only because my better half can't stand Macs.
I, however, will eventually have a G5 powered beast, and further down the road an Intel powered Mac...
AMD. Every PC I've built since the 486 (last Intel processor I owned) has had an AMD in it.
There will always be an AMD powered PC in my home, but only because my better half can't stand Macs.
I, however, will eventually have a G5 powered beast, and further down the road an Intel powered Mac...
Yeah, those X2's are pretty fast.reberto said:The AMD in my sig make a G5 look old. I even ran OS X on it. Boot time was 7 seconds!