Whats Your Pc Like? Intel Or Amd?

[rocktrials]

im getting a new pc soon, and ive been looking at going to a builder ie. redjag or someone, they seem good, yet cannot decide whether to go for intel or amd 64????

whats the differences between processors?different speeds, yet ive heard amd work better at lower speeds, but i dotn want to get an amd like 2.2, and then be able to play games for a year as newer games will need a better processor, recommened is like 1.5ghz now.

which would be best? and why etc? what have you got and what games do you play? how do they run? im mainly looking for a new pc cause i NEED to play world of warcraft.

cheers, tom.

[MrMonkey]

2.2Ghz AMD is the 3200+ I think, which is the same as a 3.2Ghz Pentium.

I'd say an AMD 64 3200 or 3400+ Processor, 1-2GB of PC3200 DDR RAM, HDD at least 120GB, Graphics Card ATi Radeon 9800Pro or above.

[rocktrials]

3000 = 1.8ghz 512kb

3200 = 2ghz 512kb cache

3500 = 2.2ghz 512kb cache

3700 = 2.2ghz 1mb cache

3800 = 2.4ghz 512kb cache

4000 = 2.4ghz 1mb cache

thats the AMD ones.

ive been looking at -

3500 AMD, 1gb ram, 6600gt nvidia, 160 hdd.

[MrMonkey]

3000 = 1.8ghz 512kb

3200 = 2ghz 512kb cache

3500 = 2.2ghz 512kb cache

3700 = 2.2ghz 1mb cache

3800 = 2.4ghz 512kb cache

4000 = 2.4ghz 1mb cache

thats the AMD ones.

ive been looking at -

3500 AMD, 1gb ram, 6600gt nvidia, 160 hdd.

←

I'd stretch it to the 3700 as it has the 1mb cache on it. And for GFx cards try and get the 6800 or X800 as the 600 of both types are pretty mediocre.

[Tomm]

Ive heard amd work better at lower speeds

←

You're getting a bit mixed up there - AMD run at slower speeds, but they do more per clock cycle. It's kind of like you need to transport 10 people from A to B. Use a Ferrari and 2 people could go really quickly, but the rest would have to wait for it to come back and do another trip. Get a minibus, and although it goes at half the speed, the people get to "B" quicker. But really, Intel and AMD are just about equal pound for pound. AMD tend to have a slightly better reputation for gaming, whereas Pentiums are generally faster for media encoding/video editing etc. Also you can get Hyperthreading on P4's and that's supposed to be good (Allows better multitasking and general Windows pootling). At the end of the day, either brand is good. But AMD if it's gonna be for games.

3000 = 1.8ghz 512kb

3200 = 2ghz 512kb cache

3500 = 2.2ghz 512kb cache

3700 = 2.2ghz 1mb cache

3800 = 2.4ghz 512kb cache

4000 = 2.4ghz 1mb cache

That might be some of them, but different versions of the chips run at different speeds. For example, my 3200+ is 2.2GHz and 512k cache (Newcastle).

3500 AMD, 1gb ram, 6600gt nvidia, 160 hdd.

←

Yeah, that sounds fine, as long as it's good value.

If you are confident in your skills, it's always worth building PCs yourself, you should be able to save lots (Y)

EDIT: And the 6600GT isn't bollocks at all. Better than a 9800XT. If you can stretch to an "8" series card (6800 or x800/850), then do. But the 6600GT will play everything around at the moment just fine.

EDIT 2: Monkey you're talking shite. The only difference between the 3700 and the 3500 is the extra cache. The clock speed is exactly the same. So overall, the 3700 is slightly faster, hence it is given a better PR rating.

[rocktrials]

cheers tomm, and others.

im not confident in building, and also if my parents give me the money, they dont want me to build one up.

[Nick Garland]

Intel as my parents bought it.

The reccomended speeds are aimed at Intels if you read it says "733mhz Intel or equivalent CPU"

Wait a few more months, dual core is just around the corner. Expensive but there £400 for cheapest AMD dual core (the 4200+) but they will be good and worth the money.

[Spikenipple]

They won't be good until they're fully compatible with everything. At the moment, the 4000+ dual core is marginally better than the single core 4000+ and the FX-55 in a wide range of benchmarks and real applications , and it literally has double the specs of it...

It's going to take far longer than just a few months to get all of the dual core technology working as efficiently in relativity as a single core system can.

But really, Intel and AMD are just about equal pound for pound.

I'm hoping you don't literally mean pound for pound?

A 2.4Ghz AMD processor for about £150 and an equivalent Intel processor for about £400?? (Y)

[MrMonkey]

EDIT 2:  Monkey you're talking shite.  The only difference between the 3700 and the 3500 is the extra cache.  The clock speed is exactly the same.  So overall, the 3700 is slightly faster, hence it is given a better PR rating.

←

Even though that's what I said. Think you might wanna re read.

And the 6600 may be better than the 9800 which is pretty obvious, BUT I know that the *800 for both types works alot better than the *600 especially the 6800GT which in my opinion is one of the best cards on the market right now.

[Towler]

I built mine up in a cube antec case, 3.2 Ghz Slapped in a gig of Geil ram with a GT 6800 mmmmmmmmmmm its the shizzzle

[Onza-Ash]

You're getting a bit mixed up there - AMD run at slower speeds, but they do more per clock cycle.  It's kind of like you need to transport 10 people from A to B.  Use a Ferrari and 2 people could go really quickly, but the rest would have to wait for it to come back and do another trip.  Get a minibus, and although it goes at half the speed, the people get to "B" quicker.  But really, Intel and AMD are just about equal pound for pound.  AMD tend to have a slightly better reputation for gaming, whereas Pentiums are generally faster for media encoding/video editing etc.  Also you can get Hyperthreading on P4's and that's supposed to be good (Allows better multitasking and general Windows pootling).  At the end of the day, either brand is good.  But AMD if it's gonna be for games.

That might be some of them, but different versions of the chips run at different speeds.  For example, my 3200+ is 2.2GHz and 512k cache (Newcastle).

Yeah, that sounds fine, as long as it's good value. 

If you are confident in your skills, it's always worth building PCs yourself, you should be able to save lots (Y)

EDIT:  And the 6600GT isn't bollocks at all.  Better than a 9800XT.  If you can stretch to an "8" series card (6800 or x800/850), then do.  But the 6600GT will play everything around at the moment just fine.

EDIT 2:  Monkey you're talking shite.  The only difference between the 3700 and the 3500 is the extra cache.  The clock speed is exactly the same.  So overall, the 3700 is slightly faster, hence it is given a better PR rating.

←

ah that was agreat post..fanstatic way of explaining the amd over intel situation :wub:

helped me out a bit..i always wonderd how they were better with less ghz.

ash

[Nick Garland]

They won't be good until they're fully compatible with everything. At the moment, the 4000+ dual core is marginally better than the single core 4000+ and the FX-55 in a wide range of benchmarks and real applications , and it literally has double the specs of it...

It's going to take far longer than just a few months to get all of the dual core technology working as efficiently in relativity as a single core system can.

I'm hoping you don't literally mean pound for pound?

A 2.4Ghz AMD processor for about £150 and an equivalent Intel processor for about £400??  (Y)

←

There is no dual core 4000+ :wub: its:

4200+ 2.2ghz 512kb L2

4400+ 2.2ghz 1mb L2

4600+ 2.4ghz 512kb L2

4800+ 2.4 ghz 1mb L2

The FX-57 is out in a few weeks anyway. AMD is saying for games use the FX series for everything else use the Athlon X2.

[Tomm]

They won't be good until they're fully compatible with everything. At the moment, the 4000+ dual core is marginally better than the single core 4000+ and the FX-55 in a wide range of benchmarks and real applications , and it literally has double the specs of it...

It's going to take far longer than just a few months to get all of the dual core technology working as efficiently in relativity as a single core system can.

I'm hoping you don't literally mean pound for pound?

A 2.4Ghz AMD processor for about £150 and an equivalent Intel processor for about £400??  (Y)

←

No, I do mean that. Most people think omgz00rs AMD f0r t3h w1n or something, but really Intel aren't bad. A lot of really techy people run P4's because they are uber stable (not that my A64 isn't, mind), overclockable and just nice. And the hyperthreading is supposed to be a real plus. For games AMD are better, but that's not to say they are massively better. They have a slight edge, whereas Intel has the slight edge in media stuff. It really does balance out and depend on what you'll be using the PC for.

Have a look at the SuperPi challenge on Bit-tech and you'll see that the top scorers are using Intels. That's not a coincidence... (link)

[Tomm]

The FX-57 is out in a few weeks anyway.  AMD is saying for games use the FX series for everything else use the Athlon X2.

←

Until there is software available for the dual core machines, I wouldn't really worry about using it either way. Games especially are gonna take time to swap over to dual core. At the moment (as Spike said), there's really no point. It will be years before a game requires dual core. Saying "get the FX for games" is all well and good, but they're not cheap!

[Spikenipple]

There is no dual core 4000+ :lol:

←

They created a prototype processor which they named the 4000+ X2 before releasing details of the retail line to the market.

[rocktrials]

If you are confident in your skills, it's always worth building PCs yourself, you should be able to save lots :(

well tomm, ive just like added up the components from ebueyr that i would be getting from custom order and it works out only about £70-50 cheaper. plus i dont wanna build myself. :lol:

[MrMonkey]

well tomm, ive just like added up the components from ebueyr that i would be getting from custom order and it works out only about £70-50 cheaper. plus i dont wanna build myself. :lol:

←

Take it to your local computer shop they'll build it up for around £30.

[B-Line]

omgz00rs AMD f0r t3h w1n or something,

←

:lol: Tomm your my hero

[munkee]

Does this include laptops?

My laptops damn sexxxxxyyy

Dell inspiron 9100 ( over heats so good, so gotta clean the fans out every so often)

3.2ghz P4 HT

gb ram

ati mobility radeon thingy forget how much thats got, but working good as my graphics card, get 120+ fps on counter strike source

dvd rw

wireless inbuilt, irda, ummmm lots of random good shit

I want to build up a pc this summer, something in a tiny box love the minimalism + its going to be so much cheaper.

got a high spec laptop, because its a laptop and so i wanted to atleast run some games as well as doing work but it cost a lot of £ :lol: could have got the same spec and better for so much more cheaper, but it saves luggin about a tower etc everytime i wanna go home.

[Tomm]

well tomm, ive just like added up the components from ebueyr that i would be getting from custom order and it works out only about £70-50 cheaper. plus i dont wanna build myself. :lol:

←

Yeah, but that's quite a lot. I mean if it was for me, there would be no contest. I could built it in a couple of hours max and that'd be £35/hour! But I appreciate that not everyone wants to build their own PC.

[biketrialler]

Out of interest did you add the price of windows xp to your cost from ebuyer? As if you didnt, definitely may as well get it from a dealer simply for ease, and warranty.

[Tomm]

Ben, I love your sig :lol:

[biketrialler]

Thankyee. The hard part was deciding exactly what to put at the end. I chose wigger, but it could have been so many other words... cock...wanker...hehe! I saw yours and liked it and figured some kind of subversion could be done on it :lol:

Edited June 11, 2005 by biketrialler

[Danny]

Does this include laptops?

My laptops damn sexxxxxyyy

I want to build up a pc this summer, something in a tiny box love the minimalism + its going to be so much cheaper.

←

Laptops are slow fullstop. For 1 major reason. They all run 5400rpm hard disks which suck by todays standards :lol: They lag so badly on hard disk intensive programs. And thats on a better laptop than yours.

Personally i want to go down the shuttle/tft route in the near future. But ill dedinately going for an Athlon 64 unless intel do anything amazing.

Current Ageing System...

AMD Athlon Xp2400 (@ 2.3Ghz 3200+ ish) cooled by a thermalright SI-97 with 92mm panaflo

2x 256Mb Geil PC3200 (cl 2-3-3-5)

ABIT NF7-S v2.0

128mb MSI FX5900 XT (@ 505/775 With atric cooling silencer)

Pioneer 16x Slot DVD

NEC ND-3500 DVD-RW

160Gb Western Digital SATA HD

[Tomm]

If I buy a new computer, I might not get another shuttle. They are nice and everything, and look pretty cool, but there are a couple of downsides. They run HOT. With it being summer, this is more of a problem - if it's a warm day and I'm playing games (I know, I should be riding instead :lol: ), then it runs VERY hot. As in almost too hot to touch - and that's just the case. Maybe it needs better ventilation, especially with an overclocked 9800XT with stock cooling, but if it gets very hot then it crashes :( Also it's quite noisy, although I think that might be something to do with the CD-ROM drive, I'ver never really bothered to check. Unless space is at a massive premium, I think you'd be better off with a tower and just sticking it on the floor. But for simpler systems with a less powerful graphics card, they are great :)