[Eugine]

I need some reputable information about Intel Vs. AMD. My friends say AMD is better while my technitions say Intel is better. I'm currently using an Intel processor (Dell PC) and have no intension to change. I just need to hear your opinion.

[Elliott]

I haven't used an Intel, but from what I hear on forums (NS mainly), AMD's own, I have an AMD and it works fine for me (though I have windows which is a downer :P )

[Max]

Your technicians will tell you Intel is better because Intel gives them money to say that :P AMD and Intel are pretty close, but AMD's processor are better performers and give off less heat (if you compare their top-of-the-line processors, that is).

While it has a slower clock speed (GHz), the AMD processors work more efficiently per cycle, which is how they can match and surpass Intel processors clocked at over 1GHz faster. For this reason they have gained alot of respect in the PC enthusiast community. Plus, until last month, AMD made the only consumer-level 64-bit processors (the Athlon64 line), which gave them a leg up in most benchmarks, applications, and games. However, Intel has been rapidly closing the performance gap with the release of their own 64-bit parts.

Both companies are now on the verge of launching their dual-core processors, which means there are two CPUs built into every processor. This allows computers to multi-task better (run two applications at the same time). With dual-core processors, when one application crashes it shouldn't take down the whole computer with it, because the other core will take over responsibilty for the operating system and other applications while the first core deals with the crashing program.

So basically it's a constant race for performance between the two companies. Check out sites like PcWorld.com and TomsHardware.com to learn more.

[Kubjelle]

It's right what Max is saying, but I've heard that if you are in the sound bis, you should use Intel, is there something in there?

But don't be fooled of the GHz, GHz indicates just who fast the CPU works, not what it does. Let's say there is to cares who races against each other, one car i faster then the other, but the slowest car wins, because it drives the swings best.

Why 64 bit is better is hard to explain, because in most cases 32 bits is better.. In the 64 athlon serie they use both 32 and 64 bit. Don't think it is hard to make a 64 bits CPU, it is possible to make 256 bits CPUs. So don't think a 64 bits CPU is twice as god as a 32 bits CPU.
To make a complicated matter easy, a 64bits CPU can make you have more RAM and deal with bigger calculation faster.

PS: Just the fist paragraph was devoted to Max, the rest was just some simple explenations.

[Max]

Kubjelle, you would do well to proofread your posts, because that post is really hard to read.


Intel CPU's are notoriously better at encoding audio and video, which is why it is the choice of audio companies and some video studios.

Your car analogy isn't really the best. It's more like comparing two human sprinters: one is short (Intel) and can do many more strides per second than his taller opponent (AMD). However, the taller runner can take longer strides, so he goes further per stride. So much further, in fact, that the short runner cannot compensate by doing more strides per second.

64-bit is better simply because there are more registers on the CPU. x86 CPUs, which are the kind used by Windows computers, normally have 8 registers, but x86-64 CPUs have over 8 more registers. For the uninitiated, registers are a form of memory (like RAM, except only single bytes in size (256MB compared to 0.001 MB)) that resides on the CPU itself and is very, very, very, very fast. It is what the CPU uses to hold the data when it is performing calculations.

Any other questions?

[Kubjelle]

Okey, I'll make a better explenation about it now.

First of all, as I've said in my previous post, a 64 bit CPU, is NOT twice as good as a 32 bits CPU. A 64 bits CPU has it good sides and bade sides. It all has to do with the machine code, you know like.(01010010011010101010010101010100)
In 64 bit you use 64 zeros and ones, in 32 bit you use 32 zeros and ones. So in 32 it is 32^2 = 4294967296-1 minus one because only 0 counts as a number.

So lets say that a 32 bits CPU have to add 561 and 10687 will it look like this:

00000000000000000000001000110001 (= 561)
+ 00000000000000000010100110111111 (= 10687)
= 00000000000000000010101111110000 (= 11248)

With a 64 bits CPU it would look like this:

000000000000000000000000000000000000000-
0000000000000001000110001 (= 561)
+ 000000000000000000000000000000000000000-
0000000000010100110111111 (= 10687)
= 000000000000000000000000000000000000000-
0000000000010101111110000 (= 11248)

64^2 = 18446744073709551616-1. In other words it's 18,4 peta.

So a 64 bits CPU can handle 4,3 billion times bigger numbers then a 32 bit. But the machine code is just twice as long.
It's not like a 32 CPU can't do high calculations, it just have to take more then 1 operation.

But in this example it is best with a 32 bit CPU.

So it's not like Intel couldn't make a 64 bit CPU, it's just that it would be useless.

[Andross]

64-bit CPUs are becoming a more heated competition because it allows companies to have their super huge algorithms run faster (gaming, Photoshop, 3D Apps, etc.) 32-bit is fine for entry level PCs or word processing. 64-bit is just so big now because gaming is becoming THE industry to be in today (it's larger than Hollywood after all) and high-end applications are increasing their userbase. Which is why it actually ISN'T pointeless for Intel to make their own 64-bit processors (which they've already done...)

[Doom Fox]

At first I used to think Intel was the best of the world, then I turned around and realised AMD is better.

Right now, I respect both, the newest processors Extreme Edition and FX tend to overheat a lot, that's why you must get a water based fan for your processor, basically the battle between those latest processors is quite tight, AMD processors are faster without needing too much GHz, Intel processors tend to overheat more than AMD. It's quite difficult to choose, but I'd choose AMD, with time I've learned that AMD products last longer than Intel's.

[Kubjelle]

Andross, on Apr 19 2005, 11:32 PM, said:

64-bit CPUs are becoming a more heated competition because it allows companies to have their super huge algorithms run faster (gaming, Photoshop, 3D Apps, etc.) 32-bit is fine for entry level PCs or word processing. 64-bit is just so big now because gaming is becoming THE industry to be in today (it's larger than Hollywood after all) and high-end applications are increasing their userbase. Which is why it actually ISN'T pointeless for Intel to make their own 64-bit processors (which they've already done...)

It is correct what you say, but a 32 bits CPU is still better at most games then a 64 bits. You can use a 32 bits CPU to much more then word processing, and still be better effective then a 64 bit CPU.

<!-- Not to Andross -->
But as you see in my example a 64 bits CPU need twice as much cache/RAM then a 32 bits CPU. What is good with AMD is the Cool'n' quite function. You might think that it lowers the "stats". And yes you are right it does, but only when you don't need to be full clocked, it "underclocks" when you don't need so much CPU power, so the sound gets weaker. Once you need more CPU power, it adjusts to full "speed".

I am exited to see the new dual core CPUs witch Max mentioned.

[Andross]

Kubjelle, on Apr 20 2005, 02:31 PM, said:

It is correct what you say, but a 32 bits CPU is still better at most games then a 64 bits.

I'd have to disagree. Most of todays PC games are making more calculations and executing more code. 64-bit can thus compute more of it faster.

[Max]

Yes, I also disagree. I think it has been pretty well established in benchmarks from hundreds of different websites that 64-bit chips (Athlon64's) have a clear upper hand when it comes to game performance. Even the "average" Athlon64 3200+ can beat out the best Intel 3.73Ghz EE.

While it is true that 64-bit means more memory consumption, memory has become alot cheaper, and it is also being used more effectively in many games and processor intensive calculations. After several years of "loose" programming (not as much optimizations), game programmers are tending to spend a good deal of time optimizing the engines and were Assembly code to take advantage of things like the new registers in 64-bit CPUs. I think the future is looking really bright with the transition to 64-bit CPUs and dual-core CPUs.

[Kubjelle]

Okey I maybe was wrong.

But my point was that 32 bit is to more then word processing.

[maker]

Ok, well i've been looking into processors, since my mother board just went bad one day (Long story). So, through all my research i've found that, First of all, 64 BIT is not worth the extra cash unless you are someone that just has to have the newest and best stuff, because there is only one operating system written for them (Microsoft Windows 2003 Server Edition). Second of all, AMD, i've found is a little bit more efficient, cheaper, and cooler, while Intel is hot, and un-noticeably slower. Personally i would just buy whichever is within my budget, because if you are just browsing the net, or playing low end games, you don't need anything THAT big....

[Max]

maker, you are incorrect. The main stream (consumer level) 64-bit processors also run 32-bit applications and operating systems. That means that they will work on all versions of Windows. I highly suggest you go with an nForce3 motherboard if you are looking for an established, cheap motherboard. I have the MSI Neo2 Platinum, which is arguably the most popular nForce3 motherboard in existence (followed closely by an Asus board), but there are many other cheaper options. Read sites like TomsHardware.com which has very good guides for beginners.