Intel Vs. AMD Cpu / ATI Vs Nvidia

[OceanSeasforMe]

I see a few signatures here and there on the site. Here is what i am running also.

My Intel Rig : D875PBZ W/ P4@2.6| 2x512 kingston Vram.| ATI-Radeon 9200se|160g maxtor + 10 gig wd IDE| Sound Blaster 5.1 |Samsung CRT, 16.3" view |Tsunami dream midtwr w/tt400w psu. ( My real PSU is in pieces till I find another box/case for it. )

My other rig is in my signature and unlike most others who run AMD boards, I stuck with and chose an ATI card over the competition.

So do most people here run Intel / ATI combos or AMD / ATI combos ?
*(or option three : INTEL/AMD +Nvidia ? )

Either way it was the ATI tool that brought me here and why I am reading some of the page.

Just curious as to the overall demographic.

[DanTheBanjoman]

Intel + Nvidia primary

Intel + Ati secondary

Intel + 3DFX server


No AMD crap is entering my home.


Btw there are more options, people using intel onboard cards, S3, XGI, trident or even 3dlabs.
People with older systems might also use Powervr. Even for CPU's people might use VIA or Transmeta(laptop). I guess most people have Intel/amd and Nvidia/Ati though.

[djbbenn]

I was running an Intel, but I switch to AMD, for gaming. I have a ATI card aswell.

-Dan

[Solaris17]

AMD+ATI= :cool: ....i ran intell and nvidia too on a vio i once had....i didnt like intels gaming power and i thought ati's could dish out more for the effort & $ than nvidia then they last too...personal opinion .

[djbbenn]

I loved my Intel, it was fast and all but I wanted to upgrade, and I was looking at benchmarks after benchmarks, and the 4000+, was compairing to the 3.73EE Intel and sometimes beating it. I don't do any audio/video coding, but lots of gaming. I got my AMD for 577cnd with tax and all the other shit. The Intel was going for $1400 :eek: So I got the AMD, and I am so pleased with it. I don't have any prefrances to CPUs, but when it come to price and performance thats what I go for. For Nvidia and ATI, well I got the X800 cause it was a good card and I got a good deal on it. I like ATI, but if price and performance is right I will have no problem switching over.

-Dan

[Autochthon]

Inspiron XPS Gen 2 - 2.13 PM - 1gig mem - Nvidia 6800 go ultra - various accessories.
and the setup in the sig.

[Anarion]

1st# amd+nv*
2nd# amd+nv*
3rd# amd+ati*
4th#amd+nv*
5th#amd+nv*
6th#amd+nv*
7th#amd+nv*
8th#intel+s3
9th#amd+3dfx
10th#amd+trident*
11th#intel+XXX

*= workin

[OceanSeasforMe]

I was running an Intel, but I switch to AMD, for gaming. I have a ATI card aswell.
-Dan

I think that sums it up for me as well.

I stuck with ATI when I went to an AMD and think they are superior cards.
*(EDIT and drivers )

Of course, that is opinion, but that is how I see it.

[zAAm]

AMD+ATI

There's nothing wrong with nVidia though... And I'll wait for the next generation Intel to even consider switching. ;)

[gR3iF]

atm:
amd x2 4800+
a 7800gtx although i dont like nvidia
but atm there is nothing better for me and gaming+ a nice ocz ram with 2-2-2-5 or if the mainboard can handle it a geil ram with cl 1.5-2-2-5

[wazzledoozle]

Ill run whatever has the best performance for the price, and that happened to be Nvidia this generation so thats what I have. I usually stick with AMD because they are much better for gaming for much cheaper.

[rcdraft]

Intel and nVidia rocks on desktop, but I just bought HP laptop AMD64Turion and Ati my first AMD and it also rocks!

[Anarion]

Ill run whatever has the best performance for the price, and that happened to be Nvidia this generation so thats what I have. I usually stick with AMD because they are much better for gaming for much cheaper.

precisely

[tony929292]

i am hope intel and nvidia sli that what i am buliding though owned both ati and nivdia i like ati best by far never had amd

[Jimmy 2004]

I go for AMD - similar performance for a lower price. Until intel lower their prices I think I only have the one choice.

[djbbenn]

I go for AMD - similar performance for a lower price. Until intel lower their prices I think I only have the one choice.

I agree with you completely.

-Dan

[DanTheBanjoman]

I agree with you completely.

-Dan

Dutch pricewatch (http://tweakers.net/pricewatch/cat/46/top)

AMD64:
3200+ 134
4000+ 377
4400+ X2 539
FX57 2.8Ghz 1032

Intel
3Ghz 165
3.6Ghz 382
3.2Ghz D 520
3.73Ghz EE 990

Prices are in euros, I picked some random comparable CPU's. I fail to see how AMD is cheaper. Don't start about "but X is faster", both brands have their good and bad sides.

[wazzledoozle]

Dutch pricewatch (http://tweakers.net/pricewatch/cat/46/top)

AMD64:
3200+ 134
4000+ 377
4400+ X2 539
FX57 2.8Ghz 1032

Intel
3Ghz 165
3.6Ghz 382
3.2Ghz D 520
3.73Ghz EE 990

Prices are in euros, I picked some random comparable CPU's. I fail to see how AMD is cheaper. Don't start about "but X is faster", both brands have their good and bad sides.

Are you retarded? You compared the wrong models first of all, 3200 to 3 ghz p4, AND THE A64 IS STILL CHEAPER!
Here is a correct price comparison (Prices from newegg.com, in $USD) (All AMD Socket 939, All P4 socket 775)
A64 3000- 146
P4 630 3.0 GHz- 179

A64 3800- 323
P4 670 3.8 GHz- 635

A64 X2 4800- 884
Extreme Edition 840 3.2 GHz Dual Core- 1,005

(These 2 are form zipzoomfly.com because newegg didnt have the P4EE single cores)
FX57- 1011
P4EE 3.73 GHz- 1010

And AMD IS faster in gaming, everything else goes back on forth lately.

[Solaris17]

correct wazzledoozle u surprise me with your quick thinking once again :)

[djbbenn]

I don't want ot argue, but my 4000+ cost me 577cnd with tax and shipping. Now I was looking at some benchmarks, and the only Intel cpu that would beat my 4000 was a 3.73EE and sometimes the 660. That was selling for 1400cnd and 900cnd before tax and shipping. :eek: Thats why I bought a AMD.

-Dan

[wazzledoozle]

Heres a good roundup of performance at Anandtech-
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2456&p=6

And heres a good dual core roundup at Anandtech-
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=7

Intel is going to get smashed until they release the pentium M in desktop version, but when they do that they will have to add SSE3 and 64 bit support so performance may drop. :eek:

[DanTheBanjoman]

Are you retarded? You compared the wrong models first of all, 3200 to 3 ghz p4, AND THE A64 IS STILL CHEAPER!
Here is a correct price comparison (Prices from newegg.com, in $USD) (All AMD Socket 939, All P4 socket 775)
A64 3000- 146
P4 630 3.0 GHz- 179

A64 3800- 323
P4 670 3.8 GHz- 635

A64 X2 4800- 884
Extreme Edition 840 3.2 GHz Dual Core- 1,005

(These 2 are form zipzoomfly.com because newegg didnt have the P4EE single cores)
FX57- 1011
P4EE 3.73 GHz- 1010

And AMD IS faster in gaming, everything else goes back on forth lately.

Before asking me if I'm retarded get your facts straight. "3000+" Doesn't mean it's comparable to a 3Ghz CPU from Intel, it means it's comparable to a Thunderbird 3Ghz.
Also, like I said I took some random models. And the EE isn't in the same market as the X2, the P4 D is. Anyway it seems you missed the point completely, AMD and Intel have similar pricing, that's the bottom line.
That was all I had to say, feel free to think of me as a retard and be an AMD fanboy.

[thedivinehairband]

Loving AMD. The only Intel I I ever used at home went t*ts up after 4 months so we sent it back and got 2 cheap athlons and had no trouble with them whatsoever. Currently an AMD+ATi person but with an nForce mobo I could be persuaded to change at a later date. Just wanna see what comes of this latest top of the pile battle.

[wazzledoozle]

Before asking me if I'm retarded get your facts straight. "3000+" Doesn't mean it's comparable to a 3Ghz CPU from Intel, it means it's comparable to a Thunderbird 3Ghz.
Also, like I said I took some random models. And the EE isn't in the same market as the X2, the P4 D is. Anyway it seems you missed the point completely, AMD and Intel have similar pricing, that's the bottom line.
That was all I had to say, feel free to think of me as a retard and be an AMD fanboy.
First, just because the Athlon XP series were based on the thunderbird for PR rating, doesnt mean now in almost 2006 they are doing the same. (I cant find any info on their PR system)
More importantly, in real world tests AMD's with a rating of so many GHz DO perform about the same or better than their Intel counterparts so the system is obviously working.

Second, the price differences are obvious. Since AMD doesnt make a low end X2, all of them can be considered high end extreme performance and are in the same market as the EE dual core, the FX and EE single cores are in the same market too (Although EE are crap)

[Jimmy 2004]

Got to agree with Wazzledoozle on that one - AMD's rating numbers do seem to match up with the Intel clock speed in most games and benchmarks. Plus AMD have 64bit processors which are still cheaper than Intel's equivilent yet more future proof. I'm not anti-intel, but I must say AMD are better priced.

[DR.Death]

Guys they are made for two different things Intel is for multi tasking and amd is better
for gaming. You cannot compare them it is like apples and oranges they are completely different so don’t bad moth either. Just because you had a problem with one or the other you can not because technology is changing at the speed of light .so you can not say I had a bad experience with a p3 when you haven’t used Intel for years I don’t care to me they work the same so it is kind of what your preference.
If you don’t like something then don’t express it because it is your option and if some one asks you then you can say but other wise dot say anything and some people don’t like this were u guys make an argument out of nothing and keep battling over it

[wazzledoozle]

Guys they are made for two different things Intel is for multi tasking and amd is better
for gaming. You cannot compare them it is like apples and oranges they are completely different so don’t bad moth either. Just because you had a problem with one or the other you can not because technology is changing at the speed of light .so you can not say I had a bad experience with a p3 when you haven’t used Intel for years I don’t care to me they work the same so it is kind of what your preference.
If you don’t like something then don’t express it because it is your option and if some one asks you then you can say but other wise dot say anything and some people don’t like this were u guys make an argument out of nothing and keep battling over it
Actually AMD has closed the gap on multithreading-
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2456&p=3

[DR.Death]

yes but intel has more years under is belt. that is your opion so i dont realy care

[Jimmy 2004]

yes but intel has more years under is belt. that is your opion so i dont realy care

We're not talking experience... we're talking performance. Just because intel is more experienced that doesn't make it any better at anything.

[DanTheBanjoman]

Actually AMD has closed the gap on multithreading-
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2456&p=3


As long as you use a CPU that can only process 1 thing at a time it'll sucka t multitasking, when the core is under full load it won't respond. Hyperthreading is a partial fix, SMP is the only real fix.

As for Jimmy, it seems yes. Nothing is what it seems though.

[djbbenn]

I know my Intel did seem to handle multiple things at once than my AMD does. But thats what its suppose to do... :D

-Dan

[DR.Death]

ya i get your point. this is just a question so answerit dont use it anthin to do with your argument k here it is . what is better a compney witch has more years making somthing or one that just started ?

[ChAce]

AMD + ATi is my choice, but ATi is lagging behind so I'm temporarily on an nVidia card. Intel = big no-go for me.

And AMD has fixed the multitasking loss... Dan meet X2, X2 meet Dan.

[Jimmy 2004]

ya i get your point. this is just a question so answerit dont use it anthin to do with your argument k here it is . what is better a compney witch has more years making somthing or one that just started ?

That is a load of Cr*p. Just because intel has been around longer it isn't any better. In fact you could argue the other way - AMD actually get more power from their processors - 2GHz AMD Athlon vs 2GHz Intel Pentium... I wonder which would win? Plus, AMD have made 64bit home processors way before Intel.

There are plenty of new companies in this world making products just as good as the older firms... they just haven't had so much time to gain so much of the market. AMD and Intel are proof of this - AMD are younger yet the companies are more or less equal when you consider the pro's and cons. I just chose AMD because they were cheaper, but even that gap is gradually closing.

[djbbenn]

ChAce - I don't have a X2...and I know how they close the gap. But I am talking in single core.

Jimmy - You cannot compair a AMD to a Intel now. They both have two completly different architect. With the P4's they do 6 IPC's, while the AMD Athlon's do 9 IPC's. You cannot campair the clock rates... doesn't work. As for 64bit, its practically useless at the moment. And when AMD first introduced it, there was nothing that used it. It was just a selling point. But now that is has "some" use, both Intel and AMD have it. Plus Intel already had it on some of the Xeon CPU's.

But I do agree with you about age of a company. That makes not much difference. Ya you need experience, but with this sort of thing, either you know how to make them or you don't.

-Dan

[wazzledoozle]

ChAce - I don't have a X2...and I know how they close the gap. But I am talking in single core.

Jimmy - You cannot compair a AMD to a Intel now. They both have two completly different architect. With the P4's they do 6 IPC's, while the AMD Athlon's do 9 IPC's. You cannot campair the clock rates... doesn't work. As for 64bit, its practically useless at the moment. And when AMD first introduced it, there was nothing that used it. It was just a selling point. But now that is has "some" use, both Intel and AMD have it. Plus Intel already had it on some of the Xeon CPU's.

But I do agree with you about age of a company. That makes not much difference. Ya you need experience, but with this sort of thing, either you know how to make them or you don't.

-Dan
Actually, AMD has been around nearly as long as Intel. When Intel was chosen as the supplier of processors for the first IBM personal computers, IBM demanded that there be a second supplier of chips so AMD was formed. In fact, there are some very old processors that have Intel and AMD markings-
http://www.linneberg.com/rpgpics/oldchip.JPG
Intel has just been the larger supplier for a long time.
AMD used to make Intel Clones, but starting with the K6, AMD stopped copying Intel and became a unique x86 processor supplier.

[djbbenn]

Interesting pic Wazz...I was reading that Intel was accutally founded in 1968 while AMD was founded in 1969. Only a year later, they weren't making CPU's and such then I don't think but, both companies have been around for a quite a while.

-Dan

[wazzledoozle]

Interesting pic Wazz...I was reading that Intel was accutally founded in 1968 while AMD was founded in 1969. Only a year later, they weren't making CPU's and such then I don't think but, both companies have been around for a quite a while.

-Dan
True, I meant by "AMD created", the processor portion of the company. Ill read up on it :)

[djbbenn]

Ya I don't know how long they been making CPU's and such, but thats when AMD was formed.

-Dan

[ChAce]

Actually, AMD has been around nearly as long as Intel. When Intel was chosen as the supplier of processors for the first IBM personal computers, IBM demanded that there be a second supplier of chips so AMD was formed. In fact, there are some very old processors that have Intel and AMD markings-


Intel has just been the larger supplier for a long time.
AMD used to make Intel Clones, but starting with the K6, AMD stopped copying Intel and became a unique x86 processor supplier.
True, they just made CPU's under the same name as Intel at first, AMD had a 286, 386 and 486 just like Intel. But then Intel got tired of AMD (and Cyrix, at the time) and wanted to patent 586. Problem: You can't patent numbers. And so the "Pentium" (latin for 5) was born. AMD brought out the K6 and from that point on, its own CPUs.

[M. Mellough]

AMD and Intel both work fine but often Intel CPU's cost twice the money for identical performance therefore I use AMD. Another, more significant difference I see between the two is not the CPU's themselves but the motherboards that support them. Motherboards with AMD sockets tend to be more tweaker-friendly probably because a majority of overclockers use AMD CPU's. When you know chances are you'll toast a couple of processors while experimenting with them you usually don't go for the costliest.

[Silverstone]

Own an old P3
Own an athlon XP
Own an amd64

would not buy Intel again. Either ATI or nvidia for video card is fine.