AMD or Intel?

[Kristian Calhoun]

I went to BestBuy tonight and the salesperson was trying to convince us that AMD (64 Athlon x2) processors were better, and faster than the Intel Pentium 4 630 one that we were interested in buying. However, the computer with the AMD processor was also more expensive. I just got home, and went online to check it out on tigerdirect.com, the amd website, and theintel website, and the amd 64 athlon x2 is only 2 GHz while the pentium 4 630 is 3 GHz. So what is wrong with this picture? Also, the sales rep. told us that all the computers only came with a two-month trial of Microsoft Office (including Word, Excel and Powerpoint), and that after the two months we'd have to pay to renew service, which I find to be rediculous and hard to believe. So my question to you is this, Which is better and faster, an AMD Athlon 64 x2, or intel Pentium 4 630?

[Adam Richards]

Originally Posted by calhounian

I went to BestBuy tonight and the salesperson was trying to convince us that AMD (64 Athlon x2) processors were better, and faster than the Intel Pentium 4 630 one that we were interested in buying. However, the computer with the AMD processor was also more expensive. I just got home, and went online to check it out on tigerdirect.com, the amd website, and theintel website, and the amd 64 athlon x2 is only 2 GHz while the pentium 4 630 is 3 GHz. So what is wrong with this picture? Also, the sales rep. told us that all the computers only came with a two-month trial of Microsoft Office (including Word, Excel and Powerpoint), and that after the two months we'd have to pay to renew service, which I find to be rediculous and hard to believe. So my question to you is this, Which is better and faster, an AMD Athlon 64 x2, or intel Pentium 4 630?

The clock speeds don't mean crap between brands.

Here's a comparison chart:

http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Adam Richards

Here's a comparison chart:

http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html

That chart completely glosses over the differences between single-core and multicore systems. The only way that you could assume those sorts of numbers, would be if everyone was always using multiple programs or multithreaded programs. Obviously, that's not the case. In fact, the comparisons between Mac and PC hardware are quite laughable—he's just completely wrong when it comes to his assessment of the PPC G5's capabilities versus an Athlon, P4 or P-M. In fact, the most glaring error is right there at the top of the chart. He conflates dual dual-core G5s and dual dual-core Xeons with a supposed P4 equivalent of 6.5 GHz—this is utterly meaningless.

[Elgin Clock]

<pssst..> They use the same supplier(s) to make thier chip testing equipment.. (trust me) so I'm guessing that both companies have the same exact chip, it's just who can put theirs to production faster, and make a cooler name for it. MMX/Athalon, etc, etc..
</psssst>

[JoeXIII'007]

AMD, period.

Seriously though, ever since I heard from The Screen Savers (TechTV a couple years back or more. I miss them, *sniffle*) that AMDs were overall better, and having 2 AMD computers in my house, I can compare them to the pentiums at my high school and the AMDs at home are definitely better.

I also find that it doesn't matter what generation processor it is, AMD is just better.

Finally, I believe the reason why the salesperson may have been telling you that the AMDs were better is because Intel recently faced lawsuit from AMD because of some unlawful practice. I think it was unfair advertising, monopolizing, or something to the effect where AMD was just pushed out of view of potential buyers.

-Joe

PS: this is not to be mistaken as an advertisement for AMD.

[sciguy125]

Intel is far superior to AMD. Your purchase will allow me to make more money from stock.

P.S. This should not be taken as an unbiased assesment of processor capabilities.

[DarkJedi613]

Definitly go with the AMD. As said before you can't just look at the overall speed. AMDs are more expensive, however, which is what the lawsuit is about (indirectly). AMD is saying that Pentium has a monopoly on the market and companies are not giving consumers a chance to choose whether they want to use AMD or Intel.

I agree the dual core is a little over board. I recently bought a Athlon 64 2800+ and it runs everything perfectly - and stays rather cool too (37 deg. Celsius).

Also the companies don't have the same chips - the architecture is very different. Ever notice that Intel usually comes out w/ new technology first? That's cause they just add on to their existing chips. AMD tends to start new projects from scratch, totally redesigning their architecture - creating a simpler, more efficent chip which helps it run "better" even though its slower.

And yes I know my opinion is mixed in there. I'd go with a AMD Athlon 64 (but not the x2 unless you're doing high end "professional" stuff).

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by calhounian

Which is better and faster, an AMD Athlon 64 x2, or intel Pentium 4 630?

That's grossly oversimplifying it; the type of work being performed by the processor has a lot to do with actual performance. Some tasks are closely bound to clock speed, others benefit from faster memory access, etc.. (P4s have high clock speed, A64s have fast memory access, because of their respective architectures.)

In your case, you might as well pick up a lesser Athlon 64 (not necessarily a dual-core x2, though), for the same cost as the Intel P4 630 (which is a single-core model). Assuming that you're doing typical things like games, an Athlon 64 will usually be better for the task. In fact, if you're just doing word-processing and internet browsing, speed is essentially irrelevant, because the computer isn't under any significant load, most of the time (right now, my processor usage is less than 2%).

As for dual- vs. single-core, it depends on how you'll use it; games tend to be singlethreaded, while multithreadedness is generally reserved for professional software*. This refers to the ability of the program to dish out parallel tasks for a multiprocessor system; a single multithreaded program can execute tasks on several cores at once, while a single singlethreaded program can only take advantage of one core at a time. Multiple singlethreaded programs, (i.e. multitasking) can, however, make use of several cores (if the OS supports it, which XP Pro does, and XP Home should, for dual-core, but not dual-processor installations); if you intend to do two computationally-intensive tasks at once, dual cores will permit this, provided that they're from a multithreaded program, or from separate programs. For this reason, it may be better to buy the best single-core processor that you can afford, rather than the newer dual-core.

Assuming your usage pattern is pretty typical, an Athlon 64 (single-core) 3800+ would probably be reasonable. The salesman is correct in saying that the A64 x2 would be a better performer, but he's on commission, so it's to his advantage to make that known.

As for Office, don't pay for it now, if you can afford to wait until the next version (creatively code-named "Office 12"), which ought to be out some time next year. There's a complete user-interface re-work underway, and from what I've seen of it, it actually looks rather good.

*There are exceptions; for example the flight simulator Falcon 4.0 (dating from 1998 or so) is multithreaded, but that, and (I think) some builds of Quake III are pretty much the only multithreaded games of any consequence. Conversely, Pro/ENGINEER is not multithreaded (on x86, at least—but it is multithreaded on SPARC), despite being firmly in the "professional software" category.

[EddieMcD]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

As for Office, don't pay for it now, if you can afford to wait until the next version (creatively code-named "Office 12"), which ought to be out some time next year. There's a complete user-interface re-work underway, and from what I've seen of it, it actually looks rather good.

Or, you could just skip paying altogether with openoffice.org.

Originally Posted by JoeXIII'007

Finally, I believe the reason why the salesperson may have been telling you that the AMDs were better is because Intel recently faced lawsuit from AMD because of some unlawful practice. I think it was unfair advertising, monopolizing, or something to the effect where AMD was just pushed out of view of potential buyers.

It was an antitrust issue. IIRC, the gist of it was Intel "encouraging" retailers to not stock computers with AMD processors.

Anyhow, my experience with AMD vs. Intel is that AMD is a bit more expensive, but AMD also performs better. Though if you're on a budget, a 3GHz P4 could be right up your alley.

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

As for Office, don't pay for it now, if you can afford to wait until the next version (creatively code-named "Office 12"), which ought to be out some time next year. There's a complete user-interface re-work underway, and from what I've seen of it, it actually looks rather good.

I still use Office 97. Excel does what I want, Word has spell check. I don't need no stinkin bloated user interface.

Wetzel

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

I still use Office 97. Excel does what I want, Word has spell check. I don't need no stinkin bloated user interface.

Wetzel

I still use Office 2000, for the most part. I've got Visio 2003 and Excel Viewer 2003, though, since I needed access to some newer files. Note that I get Visio for free from school, so I can afford to make that sort of upgrade-on-a-whim.

The UI in Office 12 is going to be the first major rework since Office 97; in fact, it's pretty much different from anything that's come before in the Office suite. See here for some preview information.

[Kristian Calhoun]

ok, what is the difference between the 754 and 939 pin numbers? See Here... and which would you reccomend? And how can i find out which pin number type I am going to be purchasing?

[Denman]

the pin numbers are important. You need a motherboard with the same socket type (ie you need a 939 socket for a 939 processor)
I would imagine it says on it what type it is, but i usually buy stuff from ebuyer.com where its all catagorized into different sockets. 939 are the more modern and more likely to continue iirc

[Cuog]

Socket 939 pin processors are the newer technology from AMD the 754 is from Intel i think but in any case the 939 is newer and has more upgrades coming in the futur, if you plan to upgrade the computer you can go ahead and get this option it is certainly better otherwise get whichever is cheaper

[Andy A.]

Any new AMD desktop processor will use a 939 socket. It is the best option if you expect to ever upgrade the processor. Additionally, the newer and more powerful motherboards that support AMD processors are probably going to all use a 939 socket.

Which ever you use, it is important that both the CPU and Motherboard match. This is important because some sockets are visually identical, and a mismatch can cause permanent damage to the CPU, motherboard or both.

-Andy A.