Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / AMD or Intel system?

Author
Message
Manic
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Completely off my face...
Posted: 30th Oct 2006 13:44 Edited at: 30th Oct 2006 13:49
Link
I'm going to buy one of these systems today, but i don't know which one yet.

the systems are identical apart from the chipset and motherboard, and the AMD system uses DDRII RAM apparantly, so... which one do you guys think will be the best one?

the intel:
http://www.cube247.co.uk/shopWebSite/php/showProducts.php?plu=16

the AMD:

http://www.cube247.co.uk/shopWebSite/php/showProducts.php?plu=17


i'll be buying one of these before the end of the working day, so if you know of better deal (the system HAS to have firewire), off a company with a good reputation, and a warranty package, tell me soon.

cheers guys and gals

Manic

I don't have a sig, live with it.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
hyrichter
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Feb 2004
Location: Arizona
Posted: 30th Oct 2006 14:55
Link
Well, personally, I prefer to build my computer. All the parts usually have a 1 to 3 year warranty, so I'm covered there.

As for AMD vs. Intel, they're both good systems, but I've always favored AMD. It seems to me that AMD gives a lot more performance for the price. I'm not that familiar with the newer AMD and Intel processors, but I'm still kinda biased towards AMD.

Good performance is better than a good excuse.
CodeSurge -- DBP Editor for serious programmers.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 30th Oct 2006 15:34
Link
The Core 2 Duo is 2.0GHz (3400+), the RAM itself is an impressive amount for what it is; however there's no information about the motherboards themselves.

I've found that the best motherboards are Intel own-brand. Have a few which are over a decade old now and still going. Also the RAM there's no additional information.

No speaker set, No Keyboard/Mouse, and No Monitor.
Seems overkill that it has a DVD-ROM and DVD-RW, also the case itself is a very cheap flimsy design.

In all neither are bad for the price, but personally I'd go with the Intel Core 2 Duo; as they produce less heat, require less power and are better for overclocking. Plus Windows Vista supports them better than AMD.

This said Intel are still in a legal fight against AMD due to their business practises; so from a moral stand-point you'd want AMD. It is also true that AMD do often perform better, but the difference has never been quite as much as gamers would let you believe ... nor are AMD processors very good with Floating-Points.
The Core 2 Duo has 4 SSE (intels version of VMX) units Per Core. Something that the Athlon64 don't support properly.

Intel Pentium-D 2.8GHz, 512MB DDR2 433, Ati Radeon X1600 Pro 256MB PCI-E, Windows Vista RC1 / XP Professional SP2
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 30th Oct 2006 15:56 Edited at: 30th Oct 2006 15:56
Link
Quote: "nor are AMD processors very good with Floating-Points"


AMD fixed that after the K5 with the 'sticky rounding' so that's no longer a problem as far as I can see

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 30th Oct 2006 20:48
Link
David I've been using high-end AMD processors until very recently and honestly the floating-point performance has always been quite a bit slower.

While the AMD processor use more Ops/Cycle, the problem is that the speed and floating-point registers have always been less. Especially as more applications support SSE but very rarely support 3DNow! (3DNow! performance is nothing like SSEs and AMDs version of SSE also seems to be slower)

on adverage, AMD processors will have around 75-50% the performance of their Intel equivilents. (check SiSandra to see what I mean), it also becomes noticable in games as DirectX which utilises these technologies more; on an AMD processor it will randomly stall the application while the CPU tries to catch up, where as the Intel processor will just run at a slightly slower speed but provide very smooth gameplay.

On the top-end processors running the lastest games, this performace difference isn't AS noticable; however as the next-generation games appear and the processors start showing their performance limits this is when such issues become very apparent.

tbh Intel just make better processors, at the sacifice of some minor performance. until recently the reason I hadn't bought them was purely because they were ridiculously expensive for mid-range and high-range processors. Now it seems the tables have turned and Intel is cheaper than equivilant AMD processors, especially for Multi-Core processors. This on the whole is a serious factor in my processor purchasing over stability or overclocking abilities.

Something else to remember is the new range of Intel run using less power, and produce less heat. Especially now that the Intel Core-Series have dropped their actually dropped the core speed.

Quite interesting to see that AMD are now the worse processors when it comes to Multi-Core technology.

Intel Pentium-D 2.8GHz, 512MB DDR2 433, Ati Radeon X1600 Pro 256MB PCI-E, Windows Vista RC1 / XP Professional SP2
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 30th Oct 2006 20:52
Link
Ah, sorry, I thought you were talking about floating-points in regards to how the CPU handled them rather than how quickly they functioned, as there was a big 'scandal' (if you could call it that) with the K5 years ago, in the bad way it chopped off digits from floating points with 'sticky rounding' without being asked to.

My mistake

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 31st Oct 2006 08:40
Link
Definately the Intel is the way to go, and this is coming from someone who has used Athlons since they came out. If you read the reviews and benchmarks, the Duo2 beats anything AMD has right now.

"Using Unix is the computing equivalent of listening only to music by David Cassidy" - Rob Pike
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Lost in Thought
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2004
Location: U.S.A. : Douglas, Georgia
Posted: 31st Oct 2006 11:36
Link
I also was an AMD man since they came out, But my last CPU was an Intel P4 and I will not be going back to AMD. Intel gets my vote. It runs cooler and faster for the most part. However when they heat up, intels run slower than AMD's at the same temp. But if you keep it cool, the intel will fly. AMD's seems to run the same speed until they fry while the Intels slow themselves down to try and keep from frying.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Miguel Melo
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2005
Location:
Posted: 31st Oct 2006 14:29 Edited at: 31st Oct 2006 14:30
Link
My last CPU was an AMD Athlon and it was pretty good I must say. However, I recently assembled a new desktop computer and after a lot of research went without any doubs for the Core 2 Duo e6400, which happens to be your first suggestion.

I, and most reviewers believe that AMD does not currently, and will not have for the upcoming months, have a processor to match the Core 2 Duo line. My CPU is overclocked so it actually runs faster than the much more expensive AMD FX2.

I believe that the right choice at this precise moment is Intel... much like it is nVidia in detriment of ATI (last generation ATI was best).

I have vague plans for World Domination
Back to top
Profile PM
MiR
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jul 2003
Location: Spain
Posted: 31st Oct 2006 14:57
Link
mmm. What did you overclock it to? I was thinking of buying a new ventilator and overclocking mine (E6600) so it would out preform the FX62. I´ve got to get full use out of the cases 4 fans before winter sets in and the pc freezes my arse off.

Need path finding in your games? Have a look at the tutorials on Pathfinding.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Manic
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Completely off my face...
Posted: 31st Oct 2006 20:54
Link
well, i bought the intel system earlier today after looking at a few reviews and benchmarks, so by friday, i should finally have a computer of my own again, and be able to be a bit more frequent around these parts.

cheers for the input guys.

Manic

I don't have a sig, live with it.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Miguel Melo
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2005
Location:
Posted: 31st Oct 2006 22:49
Link
Quote: "mmm. What did you overclock it to? "


Stock, the e6400 runs at 2.13Gh - Mine is running @ 2.72Ghz! And, if you are wondering, I don't have a fancy water cooling system or anything: just a Zalman CNPS8000 cooler.

I have vague plans for World Domination
Back to top
Profile PM
MiR
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jul 2003
Location: Spain
Posted: 31st Oct 2006 23:01
Link
Quote: "Mine is running @ 2.72Ghz! "

Gulps. Now that is value for money. Not overclocked it would be sacrilege. Right. That means I´m pushing mine to the big 3.0 (read three owe)Actually better just keep it safe. 2.72Ghz is plently. God your pc must fly. Another birthday present to add to the list.
Don´t you guys feel dirty when you have to say to people that you´ve got an Intel cpu? I still haven´t got used to it. Especialy as they all think it´s a pentium

Need path finding in your games? Have a look at the tutorials on Pathfinding.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
jasonhtml
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Mar 2004
Location: OC, California, USA
Posted: 1st Nov 2006 03:36
Link
go with intel; as other computer builders out there say thats best(as long as your not on an AMD forum, lol)


Thread: http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=78971&b=8&p=0
*New Website Coming Soon*
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Grandma
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Dec 2005
Location: Norway, Guiding the New World Order
Posted: 1st Nov 2006 08:38
Link
I would go with the Intel package.

Comp : 1024mb Ram, 3.0ghz, GeforceFX 5800, 1,1TB storage
skills: 3ds max, Reason 3.0, Photoshop CS 2, GameMaker and soon to come DBP and C++
Back to top
Profile PM Email
indi
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Earth, Brisbane, Australia
Posted: 1st Nov 2006 08:53
Link
Im going Intel so I can put OSX and WIndows onto my next rig.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 3rd Nov 2006 12:28
Link
Nah, the best thing out is the Atari processor.


Since the other one was scaring you guys so much...
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 3rd Nov 2006 16:08
Link
Quote: "Im going Intel so I can put OSX and WIndows onto my next rig"


Exact reason why I decided I wanted a new Intel system.
MacOSX and Vista on a single system setup.

Plus I wanted a Mac that could run a decent graphics card.

For anyone wondering, with a water/vapour cooling solution it's possible to get the cheapest (E6400 2.1GHz) Processor to an amazing 3.4GHz, which will out perform even the E6700 which is around $200 more expensive. I'll try and dig out the information about this.

-- -- --

For those interested Intel released this week (to the UK only for now) their first Quad Core Processor.

The Core 2 Quadro "Kentsfield" QC6700 2.8GHz 4MB Unified Cache, offers some impressive performance increases over the original Core 2 Duo E6700.

In most cases improving the speed of operations by almost 100%
Games for now generally only perform the same as dual or single core depending on if they've been patched. This will change as developers start to program for multi-core processors though.

Now that most systems on the market are Dual Core, this should be starting soon. Also the performance boot you will see from Windows Vista is just incredible, with a Dual Core it's quite a boot; and the Quadro also looks like it'll shine quite well.

Unfotunately it's only comming out with this high-end x6700 designation. Hopefully there will be low-end versions released when it becomes a true Quad Core rather than a bridged Dual Core Dual Processor.

Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 512MB DDR2 667MHz, ATi Radeon X1900 XT 256MB PCI-E, Windows Vista Business / XP Professional SP2
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Sid Sinister
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2005
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2006 21:03
Link
Intel. Best bang for the buck right now. Highly overclockable.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Manic
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Completely off my face...
Posted: 4th Nov 2006 03:49
Link
i got the PC today.... its awesome

I don't have a sig, live with it.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
indi
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Earth, Brisbane, Australia
Posted: 4th Nov 2006 03:51
Link
quads have just come out by the way. about $1000 per cpu.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 4th Nov 2006 05:08
Link
Buy an E6400 and overclocked it to 3.33GHz


http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/10/cheap_thrills/page2.html

"Using Unix is the computing equivalent of listening only to music by David Cassidy" - Rob Pike
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
MiR
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jul 2003
Location: Spain
Posted: 4th Nov 2006 12:55
Link
mmmm. Using the basic ventalator that came with the cpu I´ve got my E6600 at 2.94GHZ. It´s running at a red hot 68ºC though so I might have to lower it a notch or 2. I had it 3.0GHZ but after 5 mins of stress tests it reached 69ºC. Not nice. My old pc used to reset when the cpu reached 65ºC so I decided to lower it a bit.
After 10 mins of stress tests it still shows 68ºC. I think I´ll keep it like this until I get a better fan. That´s if it passes the stress tests though. Only another 4 hours of tests before I´ll know.

Need path finding in your games? Have a look at the tutorials on Pathfinding.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Codelike
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Dec 2005
Location: DBP - Scouseland
Posted: 11th Nov 2006 02:41 Edited at: 11th Nov 2006 02:44
Link
I've been using a program called 'BOINC' for a while now & from what I've seen (see Boincstats, use 'average credit per CPU' & note that some of the processors are overclocked) for a standard-clocked desktop, the Intel QX6700 (Core 2 Quad 2.66ghz) is going to be a number-crunching monster. For springtime? At least when the prices come down a bit! AMD's got nothing to match it apart from the twin-socket 4x4 & I'm not sure how that's going to match up. The Q6600 & Q6400 will also be available in January: Hexus review.

I have an XP3000+, 1.5gb DDR333, a 6600GT and I'm programming 3k text-based exe's?!
Back to top
Profile PM
indi
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Earth, Brisbane, Australia
Posted: 11th Nov 2006 02:55
Link
Ive got boinc as well for xgrid and seti on a few machines

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Kenjar
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jun 2005
Location: TGC
Posted: 11th Nov 2006 10:29 Edited at: 11th Nov 2006 10:39
Link
Get AMD. No, don't think about it, don't wait, don't pause, click on the AMD system and buy it now. right now, not tomorrow, but now, quick before you have a lapse in judgement and buy intel. Never by intel! ALWAYS AMD!!! * starts to foam at the mouth *

AMD!!!!!!!

I've been using AMD's since the K5 series, mainly because of the price difference. Admittedly that is sort of reversed now, but I'l still going to stick to AMD out of loyalty if nothing else. Intel often get too big for their boots, and in buisness dealings someone compair with microsoft. So AMD is the way to go. Also I don't think, with games these days that proformace really lays not in the CPU, but rather the GPU. So unless you are doing alot of mathematical stuff it won't make a big difference to your gaming experiance. With the upcoming nVidia series 8 cards, which will most likely have physics processors built in, there's even less demand on the CPU.

I lay upon my bed one bright clear night, and gazed upon the distant stars far above, then I thought... where the hell is my roof?
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
TKF15H
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jul 2003
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Posted: 11th Nov 2006 22:36
Link
It's funny people should complain about AMD's overheating, I've used AMD processors for years and never burnt any, while the only Pentium I've ever had got toasted.

My Blog
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 12th Nov 2006 11:43
Link
I had an Athlon 500, 650, Thunderbird 700, Athlon 1600MP, and 2600MP. They all ran somewhere between 60-70C. Now from what I had read about them at the time, that was a normal temperature for Athlons and they did run stable. But ppl ignore the fact that its a different chip than Intel's and look at 65C and compare it to a Penitum at 40C and think it must be melting.

I currently run a P4 2.8e and my next system would definately be Core 2 Duo without question.

K5? May as well be running a Cyrix or Evergreen chip!



Quote: "I've used AMD processors for years and never burnt any"

My friend managed to melt his thunderbird chip. It made quite a mess.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Codelike
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Dec 2005
Location: DBP - Scouseland
Posted: 12th Nov 2006 20:18 Edited at: 12th Nov 2006 20:24
Link
My laptop's Celeron M1300 aside, I haven't actually used an Intel chip on a desktop since the Pentium 1 90mhz (a replacement for an Intel 486 SX25). I'd like to give them another go & I think the time is nearly right. Back in 1993-1996, though, they were always rock-solid for me. The only chip that's ever failed on me was an AMD 200MMX.

Just for the record, my desktops are presently using an XP3000+, Duron 1300 & XP1900+ (I'm already running four cores!) not particularly an AMD fanboy thing but just because I seem to have aquired Socket462 motherboards galore! They've all lasted too, though they're much lighter on the FLOPS (Whetstone benchmark) than anything comparable from Intel.

I have an XP3000+, 1.5gb DDR333, a 6600GT and I'm programming 3k text-based exe's?!
Back to top
Profile PM
Kenjar
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jun 2005
Location: TGC
Posted: 12th Nov 2006 20:26
Link
Quote: "K5? May as well be running a Cyrix or Evergreen chip!"


I did, I ran the cyrix 150+ model. Never had any problems with it either.

I lay upon my bed one bright clear night, and gazed upon the distant stars far above, then I thought... where the hell is my roof?
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-17 20:41:13
Your offset time is: 2024-11-17 20:41:13