Jump to content


Photo

AMD or Intel


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Petal

Petal

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 32 posts

Posted 28 May 2007 - 09:48 AM

Hi guys,

Hope you can help. i want to get a new PC and am happy to spend a little bit but not extreme money. I've looked at some and am getting confused with all these processor options.... Is there a big difference between AMD and Intel? Looking to get a dual core processor. I basically want a pc where I can use lots of multi-media options. Video editing, pictures, music, creation of webpages, that kind of stuff.... not into gaming too much really. Any recommendations?
Many thanks!!!

#2 cnm

cnm

    Mother Lion of SWI

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,317 posts

Posted 28 May 2007 - 10:42 AM

I don't believe there is much difference, except AMD costs less. My own PC (which is about 5 years old) has 2.07 gigahertz AMD Athlon XP
128 kilobyte primary memory cache
512 kilobyte secondary memory cache

Microsoft MVP Windows Security 2005-2006
How camest thou in this pickle? -- William Shakespeare:(1564-1616)
The various helper groups here
UNITE


#3 hornet777

hornet777

    Forum Deity

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 607 posts

Posted 28 May 2007 - 06:51 PM

the usual paradigm cited is
Intel: faster
AMD: smarter

shift away from speed and look at throughput, and youll have a truly better computer
After all is invested in correctness, then how does it stand with truth?

#4 Petal

Petal

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 32 posts

Posted 29 May 2007 - 03:09 AM

Thanks guys, how do I judge throughput... I'm a bit lost with all those specifications..... I gather for my intended use I'm looking for good memory, a large harddrive and a fast processor?

#5 racooper

racooper

    Master of my own Domain

  • Emeritus
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts

Posted 29 May 2007 - 09:56 AM

Lots of RAM and lots of HD if you are going to be working on more than one or two video files. Possibly even a SATA RAID configuration (striped for speed, not mirrored for redundancy). Personally I'm an AMD junkie, and my next system will be an Athlon 64

I currently have: Athlon XP 3200+, Sempron 2400+ (x2), a Sempron 2800+, and my wife's is an Athlon XP 2000+. I've still got a few sub-GHz Celerons and Pentiums floating around, but those are being retired as I can afford to replace them.

#6 cnm

cnm

    Mother Lion of SWI

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,317 posts

Posted 29 May 2007 - 11:23 AM

Yes. As far as speed goes, most of the time the limiting factors are disk access - which at best is very much slower than CPU speed - and memory access which depends on the speed of the system bus.

So it makes sense to get the less expensive CPU and put the money in disk system and additional memory.

Microsoft MVP Windows Security 2005-2006
How camest thou in this pickle? -- William Shakespeare:(1564-1616)
The various helper groups here
UNITE


#7 Tuxedo Jack

Tuxedo Jack

    Creator of TuxPE, a Cat5-o'-9-Tails, Etherkillers, and more

  • Expert
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,757 posts

Posted 12 June 2007 - 03:53 AM

At the moment, simply because I need raw, pure power, I went out and bought a ton of components - chief among them an Intel Core 2 Quad processor running at 2.4GHz.

My view is this - AMD is nice, but in my experience, it ends up in budget machines. All the pure-power machines I've seen are either Intel or PowerPC.
Signature file is under revision. This will be back shortly.

#8 W33nie

W33nie

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

Posted 17 June 2007 - 12:12 AM

Most of the new AMD processors are 64 bit, so you will need a 64 bit version of windows, linux etc.

#9 racooper

racooper

    Master of my own Domain

  • Emeritus
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts

Posted 09 July 2007 - 11:56 AM

32-bit OS will run on 64-bit systems. Do it all the time (Windows, Linux, etc). It just doesn't take advantage of some of the speed available when running a native x64 OS.

BTW, the new Intel cores are also 64 bit....

Edited by racooper, 09 July 2007 - 11:56 AM.


#10 peanutwafers

peanutwafers

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 26 July 2007 - 09:34 AM

Intel dual core processors are better than AMD dual core processors but AMD cost a lot less. If it was up to me, i take the AMD processors.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Member of ASAP and UNITE
Support SpywareInfo Forum - click the button