Intel or AMD?

im planing to build a new pc too with the same AMD pro(3500), and i was looking at intel and saw an intel that ran at 3.2 for the same price as the amd that ran at 2.2, isnt the intel alot better :S

 

look if you were to benchmark that 3500+ against a p4 running at over 3 ghz, youll stil benchmark higher than the p4 chip.... amd 64 athlon chips have remarkable bus speeds.... i have the 3200+ and my FSB runs at 2000mhz..... i killed my friends p4 3.2ghz with my 2.0ghz chip.....and for games AMD smokes intel...

 

Yes there far better for games but if you look at benchmarks you will see P4's are faster at video encoding.

 

lol.....well with those top notch chips, intel should be able to benchmark higher at everything...that just goes to show you, intel cares more about there ghz speed then the actual quality of the chip, AMD's chips are well rounded, thats why they always kill intel chips..

 

Too true, you can see there attempts to step it up but it's just not good enough.

Also this is a good wee tool to compare AMD & Intel benchmarks:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html

 

AMD all the way!

 

Although I'm using an AMD FX53 and mainly do video work, I believe that when it comes to Video encoding etc... The Intel processors are better due to their raw processor speed compared to the AMD. Having said that I find my system still knocks the crap out of anything it’s compared against especially when gaming.

 

[bold]What Pulsar said. yeah!![/bold]

 

cheap example if u compare an amd 2400+ with a intel 3 ghz the amd smokes intel because the 2400+ is running at 1800mhz & still matches that of the 3 gig intel (SHAME ON INTEL) at half the price)

 

I have always been an AMD fan and recent chips are seeing the Intels off at MOST things, but as always one is good for one thing and one may be better at the other.

Short answer : AMD

@Daggy
Which 2400 beat a 3GHz? I certainly never saw an XP2400+ (2ghz) beat one or a sempron (1.6ghz) either? Just curious.

 

I guess i phrazed it wrong, I meant is 2400+ amd is equal to a 3ghz intel

 

Every benchmark I've saw comparing a xp 2400+ against a P4 3ghz the P4 has been the clear winner even the xp3000+ is slower in benchmarks, the 64bits wipe the floor with the P4's thou. Doesn't 2400+ mean it's the same as a p4 2.4ghz.

 

You silly chumps forgot 1 thing the 2400+ sempron is a budget processor
& Wasn't meant to compete with normal p4 3ghz processor
It was made as a counter measure to intel's hurting 3gh celloron processor. (which infact is soooo slow!)
The sempron 2400+ is equal to intel p4 2400gh yes!
BUT ONLY IF U COMPARE IT TO A NON BUDGET PROCESSOR!
(meaning sempron2400+ is a buddget processor that is equal to that the power of the p4 2400 ghz processor which is NOT a budget procesor)
SHAME ON INTEL!
The sempron 2400's go anywhere from 1600 mhz to 1800 mhz
& still RIVALS a intel p4 2400gh processor & sure as the bj i am getting while typing this ... It outdoes a p4 3ghz celloron!

I see diff pc's everyday & celleron 3ghz is not even On the sempron 2400+ level but the p4 2400ghz IS.
The sempron 3000+ which is another BUDGET processor is on the same level as p4 3 ghz which is not a budget processor.
For gameing amd is the only way to go.
Those hurting benchmark u saw r by intel fan boys go look some more you'll see other benchmarks prooving my outake to this to be true.
Hope this helps u decide
As for video ... Look at the quality of the video encoded with amd then intel ... u will notice amd takes 15 to 20 mins longer to do video ... But they use a totally different method of encoding which that of the pic quality is alot better.
2 bonuses ... AMD chips are made to be overclockable. amd the company has taken over the market with this & it seems they got Billions of happy customers worldwide.
AMD chips are also half the price of intel

 

AMD will give you better bang for your buck but if you plan on doing a lot of video encoding then get Intel.

 

I was told that P4 had an instruction path that is 21 instructions in lenth while AMD's path is 12 instructions deep. The longer the path the greater the gigahertz number you can generate. The look ahead routine used to predict the next instruction is often wrong, and the execution
must restart. The fact that AMD must only restart and do 12 instructions gives it a slight advantage even though it does not have a higher rating.
It appears that the WORK DONE can be equated like this - 3.8 is 3800+.
Just put the decimal point after the first number in the AMD number and you get the equivalent work done by the intel P4 number.

True or not, AMD is generally less expensive and has the advantage of a
private association with NVIDIA. Many people prefer NVIDIA over the other companies.
I do know that the socket 939 will take all levels of AMD chip, such as
32xx and FX plus the new daul core chips. The trick is to get a board like the DFI SLI board with SATA 3 gigabyte support for the new SATA hard drives. This way you will be obsolesence proof for many years to come. I hope this helps DVDBACK23.

 

Are you sure about that it seems Intel are alot cheaper now.

As for encoding i always get great quality and I've seen AMD encoded video and there's not much of a difference well at lest not to me, AMD are better for games FACT, Pentiums are better at encoding FACT, even if the benchmark's are by fanboys it still shows the results.

AMD have fanboys too you know!