Intel P4 vs AMD

Baltekmi,

Here's what they said:The DVI port can display resolutions up to 1920 x 1080 at 60Hz. Though, this is only possibly if the monitor supports a feature of DVI ports called "Reduced Blanking". 1680 X 1050 is a resolution that does require the Reduced Blanking feature, so make sure that your monitor supports it or you may not be able to attain the native resolution of the monitor.


Happy Computering,

Theonejrs

PS Everyone, please Check the thread "Spy Kids 2D" in Kids Movies in Hounds! I promise you, it's everything I say and more! Maybe it's because it was shot in 3D it looks like that. It's a little hoaky in spots but the blend of CG and real life is an experience you won't want to miss! The 3D in 2D is amazing! The perception of 3 dinentional depth has to be seen to be believed!

jrs

 

Theonejrs
but is dvi, assuming the monitor supports the plug in, better in general than vga?

 

Baltekmi,

Absolutely!! Videos native form is digital. You get an exact digital image of what the video source is with every pixel in place! The Sceptre Naga III widescreen has DVI input and my video card has digital output. I have the cable that came with the video card so I guess I'm going to find out. I should have the new widescreen by the end of next week and I'll let you know how it works out.

Happy Computering,

theonejrs

 

Being a High def CRT person, I'll pass on DVI. I have to!

 

I think this AMD V Intel thing has gotten totally off topic!!!
So what do all you guys eat for breakfast anyway?

 

We're not back into baby food yet. Is the baby giving a Bronx cheer your idea of getting things back on topic or being constructive? What are you having for breakfast?

Since the general consensus is that the folks at Intel need to get off their duff and do some much needed R&D to play catchup with AMD, the discussion gravitated toward peripherals to be used with AMD and Intel. If you have something useful to add, feel free to do so.

 

@ brobear,
Lighten up dude!!
I've seen many threads terminated due to the topic changing.
Getting back to AMD V Intel,I agree AMD have the edge.My old faithfull
1700 thoroughbred running at 1667mhz has never let me down.
I've thought about upgrading but can't see the sense when I've got something that is so reliable.By the way,caffeine+nicotine is my breakfast.

 

crowy

No need, I never got heavy. Just stating the obvious. The thread is still oriented to AMD and Intel, but we are allowed to discuss things that relate to both. By the way, acting silly will cause a thread to be terminated faster than discussing peripheral topics to the main one.

Getting back on topic, when the 1700 was brought out, the Intels were still superior to the AMD products. The shift has occurred over the past 2 to 3 years. Only in the high performace arena, such as OC(ing) can any real superiority be seen of AMD over Intel. Most people will see no difference between stock "out of the box" models used at home and office. It's when people need performance for apps such as CAD, encoding, and games that the onboard memory and performance with being OC(ed) shows the AMD superiority. For single core apps such as gaming, the intel can compete if the user is willing to work harder at cooling. However, for the normally air cooled setups, AMD is more friendly. Just remember, both Intel and AMD can handle regular office and home tasks equally well. PCs are not pressured to perform at peak levels all the time.

Both AMD and Intel are good products. As I mentioned the average person won't see a difference. Also, Intel is a more recognized name brand. So for a while we'll still see the majority of the PCs on the market being Intel platforms. However, if Intel doesn't get off their duff, the AMD based PCs will continue to cut into the Intel market share.

 

Brobear,

I'm not so sure about that one. I had a brand new Dell 3000 with a P4 3.0 H/T 800fsb and when I put all my drives into the Asus P4P800 SE and installed the same processor and memory, it was noticably faster just with the basic defaults. You will see that when you get yours all built. As an experiment I put the 2.8/533 into the Asus and it was still faster than the Dell was with the 3.0!

Now it loads XP Pro in about 15 seconds from the time the XP Logo comes on the screen. Locked, Loaded and ready to go! You are going to love your new MB.

Happy Computering,

theonejrs

 

LOL What about [bold]stock "out of the box"[/bold] didn't you understand?

Putting in an aftermarket mobo sure sounds like a bit of customization to me, even if you use default settings. Still, had you used it for most basic tasks such as word processing, surfing the net, email, and the occasional playing of a CD or DVD; like the majority of people do, the time frame should have been near the same as a comparable [bold]stock "out of the box"[/bold] AMD platform. Did you actually time the reboots? Normally the only thing that speeds that up is a faster CPU and better memory utilization. Hmm... new mobo you say?

The 2.8 processor going from a 533MHz FSB to an 800 would make a slight difference. Also, the custom boards usually utilize memory better than a locked OEM BIOS on the OEM mobos. Upgrading mobos isn't exactly a good example of stock, but it goes to show what a bit of custom upgrading can do. I'll have to remember to do a "before and after" reboot as a time trial. I might have neglected to do that before.

 

Well that is the problem first of all. Dell computers in my opinion suck. Just like any off the shelf computer with motherboards fixed to that production run is crap. That is why we (you) build your own. To have the flexability to adjust or twek things. Personally since I have built my first computer to now, there is no comparision. Iknow all you guys believe that you know more than the next guy.. and to a certain extent I respect that and trust you and your opinions. I still say Intel will come out on top! Hopefully sooner than later.
to crowy, where have you been, and what have you contributed?! DUH

 

No, I disagree there, IMO stock computers are perfectly adequate, and generally use reliable parts, especially in Dell's case, but they're not specific overclocking custom parts. Dell would choose components you can't upgrade so you end up buying another Dell system...

 

Brobear,

What I was saying meant motherboard to motherboard! All things being equal (CPU, memory, hard drive, Etc.), the design of the Asus MB is just so much better and more efficient! I'm sure my 2 Gb of Ram helps as well. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Happy Computering,

theonejrs

 

Theonejrs,
And I was talking about stock "out of the box" platforms. The items the manufacturers send out to be sold and that most people don't tamper with. The comparison was of stock "working" PCs of the AMD and Intel platforms, not customized.

Baltekmi and Sammorris,
I'm familiar with Dell and Gateway products. They use generic and name brand products bought at discount to produce affordable computer packages. The Dell Demension 8300 I've owned and upgraded over the past couple of years was upgradable, except for the OEM mobo. The reason for the locked mobo is obvious, to prevent tampering and possible damage to the system. No OC(ing) allowed. The manufacturers lock in safe settings that help insure the longevity of the system. The average user doesn't know the difference. Nowadays, both the AMD and Intel platforms supply good service. I'm not going to put them down. They're much better than what the average PC was a few years ago.

I guess everybody has one. I like the Dell I have, though it doesn't compare to some customs (it's actually better than some). The key features of a custom are what we want in them and not what we settle for with a "boxed" item. So naturally we're going to be fond of our customs. I'm not going to be elitist and say factory PCs suck though, they merely can't compete with customs that are "tweakable".

And yes, Dells can be upgraded. I upgraded the processor and memory on my system and it works much better than what I had before. I could have paid some high dollars for the 3.4 Northwood processor a few years ago. I have to admit though, I prefer being able to adjust the BIOS settings. It doesn't always have to be OC related. Sometimes one needs to adjust the settings to get the RAM settings optimized. I recently opened up one of the new Dell XPS systems for an upgrade. The owner changed his mind and wanted the internal floppy installed. One of the first things a person sees is that the PC has some of the new technology in use and that the systems are at least expandable (unless the top end is purchased with all the bays full). Even with the space saver mini towers, there is room for the floppy, a card reader, a couple of optical drives and a couple of hard drives. More than most people would need. Then there are the likes of us who congregate here on the forums. LOL Why use a tack hammer when a sledge will work?

 

well quite.
On a slightly vaguely related topic, what do you think performance and cooling will be like with an NZXT classic case:

http://www.aria.co.uk/ProductsList.asp?Name=nzxt+classic

It's a tad expensive, but really looks the part and I can have a PC premade for me with silver DVDRW, DVDROM, Card reader and floppy disk, all silver!
Plus I can also have a silver aerocool panel too.
I'm also debating a Hiper 580W UV Black PSU.

 

Where i am from i would have to say that an intel is cheaper than an amd. i do not buy prebuilt computers, i select the components, and put it togeather myself. and if i didnt have the capactity to do that the store i buy from assembles it for free. look at these prices and tell me im wrong with my assumption.


otvtech.com

 

I agree that intel are cheaper and better they don't heat up as much and they have faster clock speeds i think...........They are also more reliable.......BUt i guess the way i think of it is that each time an Intel or AMD chip comes out one is better than the other then the next time ne AMD and Intel come out the other might be better, It's all about the competition i say

 

not often for what you're actually getting.

Nah, not in the eyes of those who know what they're talking about. Not at the moment anyway

quite the contrary, intel are the worst offenders for heat

true but irrelevant. Performance-wise, AMD come out on top.

CPUs rarely go wrong unless you uber-overclock them. This is easier to do on AMDs and so oC-related issues may happen more often as a result, but overall reliability is excellent for both manufacturers.

While this is generally true in other markets, particularly gpu, intel have been lagging behind AMD continuously in the running this past year. Of course sales are still above AMD's levels, but falling due to their lack of good efficient technology. Changing their jingle and logo to "pentium inside" isn't going to help matters much.

Lol edit due to extra q in quote - everything was a quote!

 

From what i heard that AMD heats up more than intel

 

Nah mate, especially not dual core and/or extreme processors. Intel are far worse at creating heat, at least now. The old Northwood core like brobear has is good, but the later Prescott (5xx, 6xx) and Gallatin (8xx, 9xx) cores run very hot, just in range of the highest performance coolers. Lots of heat means lots of noise getting rid of it as I'm sure you'll realise.