desert_storm Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 What are the pros and cons of the AMD and Intel Prossers and motherboards? I noticed that AMD prossers that run at 2Ghz cost the same as an intel prosser with 3.2Ghz, why is that? Why do some people prefer AMD over Intel and Vica-versa? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeLeto Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 The AMD Athlon64 Processor is, simply put, faster. The more advanced pipelining, faster bus speeds, and 64-bit architecture allow it to operate at comparatively higher speeds than Intel equivalents. An AMD Athlon64 4000, when properly set up and cooled, should be considered to run at a slightly faster speed than an Intel P4 4.0 GHz - which, as far as I know, doesn't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muad dib Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 To add what DukeLeto said, if you wait a couple of months, some motherboards that use AMD will soon be able to use the full potental of the 64 bit processor. In other words, it will be really fast. Intel wont be able to keep up.Also the AMD processor is cheaper than Intels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 I thought that the AMD chip is more efficient than the Intel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megashrap Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 It all boils down to individual choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desert_storm Posted January 15, 2005 Author Share Posted January 15, 2005 What is better, the AMD XP or the AMD 64? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeLeto Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 The AMD Athlon 64 is strictly superior in just about every respect, but it's a lot more expensive. But the Athlon XP Series ends at about 3000, so if you want high-end processing power, you'll have to go with the 64. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megashrap Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 I wouldn't say superior to all xp's though..just a next stepping processor and yes better in some ways, but not in every way."When looking at raw CPU performance, we see only slight variations between the high-end Athlon XP and the low-end Athlon64 processors. Both tests show the Athlon XP 3200+ besting the Athlon64 2800+ when run at stock speeds, likely due to the higher raw clock speeds of the high-end Athlon XP models. On a clock for clock basis, the Athlon64 appears to be a more powerful CPU core, but when the architectural differences of the Athlon64 aren't fully exploited, the chip performs surprisingly like their last generation Athlon XP."[attachment archived by Gobalopper] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeLeto Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 Why are they comparing the Athlon XP 3200 to the AMD 64 2800? Shouldn't they be using, oh, the 64 3200? I could have told you the architecture, especially on a motherboard ill-equipped to handle it, wouldn't make 400 MHz of difference. That's like saying the P4 HT tech is useless because a P4 2.8 with Hyper-threading was outperformed by a 3.2 without (although I am reasonably certain they don't make 3.2 GHz P4s w/o HT). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.