Are AMD's processors generally better than Intel's? I'm a bit lost on AMD's system of processor rating. Here's a (short) article I googled: http://www.ocfaq.com/article.php/overclocking/AMD/36 So, as far as I understand, that means AMD's 3700+ performs at about ~3.7GHz, even though the actual GHz is lower. First of all, before I make a decision based on a misjudgement, did I misunderstand anything? Second of all, would anyone actually recommend AMD over Intel? Thanks for any help in advance.

I'd go with AMD over Intel. Historically, Intel's competitors have been better at doing x86 than they have.

Of course, I'd take IBM over both. *drool* POWER, The Cell

[Edited by - igni ferroque on October 17, 2004 12:42:31 AM]

I too recommend the AMD CPU, especialy if you plan on using it for gaming.
There's a rather intresting article (well part of one) over at AnandTech that explains why the Athlon 64 can be faster than the P4 even though the P4 got a higher Hz rating. But keep in mind that the article is rather old, so while the information about the architecture is still valid the performance picture has changed somewhat. You might want to check out some of the later artciles (like this one) to get a better view of the current picture.


EIDT: Fixed links

I always go for AMD. Why? For "bang for the buck" you almost always win with AMD, and whilst their performance rating system is generally OK, you'll often find it unballanced (compare a P4 3Ghz to an AMD 3000+ at video processing for example). In many ways AMD processors **can** be faster, and in many ways **can** be slower than their Intel competition. Apps optimised for SSE2 for example trounce the AMD processors (and those apps are ususally 3D modelling apps, and Video editing, etc). However you pay a BIG premium for choosing Intel, for performance gains in these areas. Games usually seem to tip in faour of AMD, from reviews I've seen (tom's hardware usually).

Of course, I'd always recommend a balanced system. My Work PC should be awesome (its 18 months old, but still generally impressive spec wise) - 3Ghz P4, 768MB RAM, SB Live Sound card and AN ATI RAGE128 16MB graphics card! Thats right an ATI Rage 128. In almost all cases my AMD 2400+ trounces that system, (which has an 9800Pro card), for video, games - anything. Its no use getting a top notch component if you arent going to back it up.

I've not tried the AMD64's yet, but from what Ive read they're pretty awesome. If only I could afford one right now.......

Anyways,

Neil

AMD.

AMD has constantly put better foundations into their chips allowing them to perform at the same clock speed or better as the recent Intel chips. Even Intel has given up the "Gigahertz is better!" crap. With their recent announcement that they were scrapping the 4Ghz P4s altogether (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041014/D85NEEG01.html) and instead beginning to concentrate on re-architecting the chips themselves -- what AMD has been doing for years -- I expect the Gigahertz comparison to eventually be lost.

The only time AMD has made a blunder was when their early Palomino cores didn't include a thermal sensor. I lost a chip to this myself unfortunately so I'm probably holding a grudge -- but Intel had this support for a much longer time than AMD.

In short, AMD has put the money and cash into improving their foundries, their design, and their *long term* health and ability. Intel has sought to maintain their profit margins for the short term and now are going to suffer for it. AMD set the pace for x86-64 -- Intel cloned AMD's chipset! -- and maintains the production and deployment numbers. Intel isn't beaten anymore than Microsoft is, but they've taken quite a few sucker punches recently.

Quote:Original post by thedo
I always go for AMD. Why? For "bang for the buck" you almost always win with AMD, and whilst their performance rating system is generally OK, you'll often find it unballanced (compare a P4 3Ghz to an AMD 3000+ at video processing for example).

Actuly it's generaly considerd that the Athlon 64 3000+ is faster than the P4 3 GHz thus well earnings it's 3000 naming. It is true that in video encoding (like divx) and 3D rendering (like 3D Studio Max) it is somewhat slower but in pretty much anything else it's faster, and in some areas considerably faster.
In Doom 3 for example the Athlon 64 completely trounces the P4, holding all the top five CPU spots while the most expensive P4 barly makes it into the sixt spot (P4 3.4 EE gets 87.4 fps while the 64 3000+ gets 85.3 fps on 800x600 HQ).

So if you're doing alot of 3D modeling consider geting a P4 instead, or better yet a dual cpu system. If you'r doing a lot of encoding consider buy a cheap secondary system that can crounch numbers all night leaving your primay system free for other use. And finaly if your doing a lot of gaming get the Athlon 64. For anything else it's pretty much a draw (with the A64 3000+ rougly comparing to a P4 3.2), get whichever is cheaper (you'll probably find that to be the Athlon 64).

Depending on what you do, you may find that memory bus speed is your most limiting factor. All the Pentium IVs can be had with 800 MHz memory bus, and you can cheaply couple them with dual-DDR-400 memory (or even dual-533). Sadly, only the Athlon FX (top of the line) can give you the same memory throughput on the AMD side; all the XP 64 chips top out at 400 MHz memory bus (or did, last I checked).

Thus, right now I'd probably go for a 3.2 GHz Pentium IV 540 with a 915P chip set motherboard, and a PCI-Express graphics card of some sort (probably a GeForce 6800 GT ;-) Put in two 512 MB sticks of PC3800 RAM and you should be golden.

If you have money to splurge, an Athlon FX 53 with registered memory, or a Pentium IV Extreme Edition coupled with a 925X chip set, would be a nice upgrade -- at, like, an extra grand for the upgraded CPU, motherboard, and memory... Usually not worth it :-)