Computer Question: AMD or Intel

[Guy_Montag]

I can get a virtually identical system (only the motherboards are different) for the same price with either an Intel 3.4 HT processor or an AMD 64 3400.

Given that mostly I use my PC for games & graphics stuff, running XP home & probably Linux (red hat flavour) dual boot.

Which should I go for?

Thanks in advance
G.M.

[bullimiami]

1. sounds odd

An equivalent AMD system should be much less than a P4.

AMD are also 64 bit.

[truthspeaker]

2. AMD. More reliable, better company.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. Go with AMD.

Incredibly solid processor. Incredibly good architecture. Incredibly good price. Intel does not have a consumer 64 bit.

All I build for customers is AMD-based systems. Why? Value for dollar. I can build in more features, thanks to the cheaper price of the processor. That matters.

[Maestro]

4. AMD

Hands down. The company makes a much more efficient cpu which, even though runs at lower megahertz, outpaces Intel's Prescott cpus or its Northwood Pentium 4s. PM me if you want to know about some good AMD configurations. I am getting ready to build two AMD based computers.

[sir_captain]

5. You should check out the benchmarks

at a place like anandtech.com

It really depends on what you're doing. You'll probably see slightly better game performance from the AMD, though for any sort of video work the Intel will come out ahead with its SSE3 instruction set. For everyday office work, you'd be better off with the Intel as well--that hyperthreading really does make a difference in multi-tasking.

The AMD's main technological advantage is that it's 64-bit, but without even a 64-bit OS to take advantage of that, and next to no software that will take advantage of it, you're really paying for a feature you can't use right now.

[landdaddy]

6. AMD

for price and performance! For gaming and heavy graphics get a good heatsink for it! Thermalright is my choice! I've built many an AMD based PC with nary a complaint!:thumbsup:

[hyphenate]

7. I've had AMD processors

since my 386, 9 years ago. Never had any trouble with them. In fact, they tend to be slightly less expensive than their Intel equivalents, so the system with the AMD should be even slightly better than the Intel system.

The only thing is not to get a Duron, because it's the equivalent of the Celeron processor. Go for the Athlon Thunderbird if you have that option.

Here's a website with some information for you:

http://www.buildeasypc.com/hw/cpu.htm

[Burma Jones]

8. AMD - or Apple..........n/t

[LynneSin]

9. I had an AMD Althon 6 - incredible processor...

...and a hell of alot cheaper. It actually did better in the processor tests than a PentIv.

Only reason I had one - I droped my laptop while walking on ice. Cracked the thing open :cry: I've yet to get the thing fixed

[Xithras]

10. Equal dollars? Go Intel

AMD is good in the "bang for the buck" realm, but if we're essentially comparing 3.4 vs 3.4 without cost being a factor, the latest round of Prescott performance tweaks push Intel over the top by a mile. AMD's 64 bit capabilities provide theoretical performance advantages over the longer term, but Intels HT advantage offers genuine (and very noticeable) performance gains RIGHT NOW.

In addition, the HT motherboards typically also support dual channel RAM, which can provide yet another 20-25% performance boost in some applications (another feature AMD has yet to match).

If you're looking to build a performer on a budget AMD is usually the better solution, but if price is no object or if price isn't a factor in the decision, Intel still rules the performance arena.

In gaming terms: My 3.2Ghz HT w/ dual channel & a GF4200 scores a whopping 405fps in Quake3 @1024, while a friends AMD 64 3200+ with the same video card scores a much lower 320. Now 320 is nothing to mock, but I can't see the advantage of crippling my performance today in the HOPES that it will pay off soon. I've been using a 64 bit desktop at work for years and I know what its advantages are, but the reality is that the 64 bit push into the mainstream market has more to do with marketing and promoting sales than it does improving performance. Let's face it, 90% of desktop computers are used for spreadsheets, word processing, and web browsing, and 64 bit isn't going to do diddly when it comes to making those applications faster.

The only "mainstream" markets that will see advantages from the 64 bit realm are those that deal with 3D, and those markets will take at least a few years to ramp up as the chips slowly make their way into the market. By that time you'll be ready to replace your CPU again anyway.

Build it for today, not tommorow.

[Guy_Montag]

11. Thank you all.

Should probably have given the whole spec & price. I think AMD wins by popularity, but Intel wins by arguments.

I imagine suspiciously only one will be available when I try to buy, that's not too unusual.