AMD or INTEL

[wAn_eyE]

---

AMD may be cheaper than Intel but their high-end processors are just too overprised - XP 2800+-3200+. In Intel, you get wat you pay for (Not all the time though. Heheh). It may be a little more expensive but then you get the more value per performance plus quality in the product.

[jomark]

[quote]sir jorly... naa ka proof about PRACTICABILITY USE OF INTEL?

"It is the matter of use or the practicability of use that Intel oustshines AMD processor."

Practicality comes first with PRICE...

Intel Pentium 4 1.8GHz = 7,600.00~

then... how it performs... over its price...

AMD Athlon XP 2600+ (2.083GHz) = 6,200.00
AMD Athlon XP 2500+ (1.8GHz) = 5,650.00

it is not about GHz... words or advertisements... its about real world performance...
try to ask the experts! NOT those technicians who feels they are expert...

"CPU history was made by Intel"
"Intel made computing possible.... "

Why go back to HISTORY when we are living in the PRESENT?
Macintosh was the history of Desktop Computing... would you like to buy one now? when you can get a more useable, faster and cheaper alternetive (PC)?

Common sense dictates that practicability of use does not always connote the price factor but how and to what a particular processor is utilized to. Am using an Intel rig for video editing and found it more appropriate and substantially faster for that purpose as compared to and in reference to the best known AMD rig I've tested (experience per se).

There's no sense in citing the past or present perfect performance of an AMD. What matters most is the method of practical use a certain processor is being subjected to. So the big question is, what particular and practical application your AMD rig have gone to....for gaming... nay...it is not a good indicator for practicability of use.....it cannot be used or can be quantified for the determination of man hour loss/gain(productivity level)...

[BeoR]

in 2-3 months jomark... we'll see how fast your Intel is compared to my Athlon64

most specialized applications are Pentium4 Optimized... this is one marketing strategy that Intel has been doing for so long already. that's why they are being accused of "unfair competition". they provide "development assistance" to most specialized software developers.

as previously stated, it depends on your purpose... for general use however, AMD is more practical...

[naynoy]

it might not be fair to compare an athlon64 as against any current 32bit cpu both from intel and amd since the athlon 64 is a 64bit cpu, but then again it might not even beat the current crop of top of the line p4c due mainly to the fact that the first few production release of the athlon 64 are runnning on 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8 ghz respectively.. also with the release of supposedly newer and better cpu comes hefty price tags which might not be even practical.... it is still going to be a relatively wait and see attitude for at least 6 months.... i just hope that the athlon 64 would take the performance crown back to amd...

[BeoR]

it is a fair comparison since the existing programs that are widely used is 32-bit. the Athlon64 isn't a 64-bit CPU but rather a hybrid 32 / 64-bit CPU... runs current 32-bit programs fine while being ready for future 64-bit computing... yes, it is still a wait and see situation... but given that the only advantage (SSE2) the Pentium4 is having over the Athlon right now is supported by the Athlon64... and the obvious performance advantage of the Athlon over the Pentium4 on non-SSE2 optimized applications... I don't see any reason why it can't beat the P4...

[zi0n]

Do not compare the fastest intel processor against an AMD processor. Take for example the Pentium 4 3.2GHz against an Athlon XP3200+....

First, take note that the XP3200+ only runs at a native clock speed of 2.2GHz. It is a GHz below than the 3.2GHz Pentium 4. But what is important to see here is how come a 2.2GHz Athlon can beat a 2.4GHz Pentium 4? It even beats the 2.6GHz Pentium 4 in most application tests and benchmarks published all over the internet!

What if AMD has released a 3.2GHz processor? it would have been a fair competition, right? Can you still brag about your Pentium 4 3.2GHz? With the quantispeed architecture (4 executions per clock cycle) of the Athlon processors against the dual pipeline of the pentium4 processors? I don't think so.

[irangejuice]

quanti AMDs? dual pipe intels?

[zi0n]

We're not talking of the coolest processor here, rather the fastest. AMD is hotter than intel mainly because of its 1.65 core voltage against intel's 1.40V (P4 3.2GHz). The reason why Athlons operate at that voltage is because of the need for speeeeeed! Come to think of it, today both markets use the .13 micron chip already.

[zi0n]

quanti AMDs? dual pipe intels?

Got that from a review at hardcoreware :mrgreen:

[irangejuice]

i'm not really sure but aren't the AMD's dual and P4s quanti?

can you please post the link to hardcoreware's review?