Jump to content



Welcome to KnowledgeSutra - Dear Guest , Please Register here to get Your own website. - Ask a Question / Express Opinion / Reply w/o Sign-Up!
- - - - -

What Processor Do You Prefer?


30 replies to this topic

Poll: what is the best processor for you?

what is the best processor for you?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 bonniecool

    Newbie [Level 2]

  • Kontributors
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 07 October 2005 - 03:18 AM

What processor do you like to use?

These processor has their own functions in every uses which processor do you prefer to use. Even in work or just in gamin?

Notice from BuffaloHELP:
Edited title's grammar.

Edited by BuffaloHELP, 25 October 2005 - 12:18 AM.


#2 Rubyducky

    Newbie [Level 2]

  • Kontributors
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 07 October 2005 - 06:32 AM

If I am gaming, I like AMD. If I'm going to do everyday work, then I'd choose Intel. Intelis more compatable with more programs, but AMD works games better.

#3 E-Sector

    Advanced Member

  • Kontributors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts

Posted 07 October 2005 - 10:38 AM

IBM Power PC IS the Best processors. Then I think AMD is on the second place, intel is so slow.

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07...cw_macvspc2.htm

http://www.apple.com...ac/performance/ :huh:

#4 gotenx

    Member [Level 1]

  • Kontributors
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Location:California
  • Interests:Computers, teh l4die5, Anime

Posted 09 October 2005 - 02:28 AM

AMD beats intel and powerpc all the way. Much more stable and fast. Theres nothing else I can say but try it yourself.

#5 grnjd

    Super Member

  • Kontributors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 250 posts

Posted 09 October 2005 - 02:38 AM

Amd is better because my notebook has it :huh: So im bias, but it is truly better since its more stable, has more power, but its sad that its not that compatible. Intel is like the internet explorer of processers, while amd is like mozilla

#6 hulunes

    .::UniCorN::.

  • Kontributors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 973 posts
  • Location:Dalian CHN
  • Interests:basketball &drawing,digital pro.

Posted 09 October 2005 - 02:43 AM

interesting,after my voting the result is deuce(both are 42.6%).although its huge amounts of transistors make huge quantity of heat...from the market foreground,intel will be the winner furthermore last to the real 64bit time(having to admit that AMD is powerful in CISC family indeed). :huh:

#7 mayank

    Mankie

  • Kontributors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 770 posts
  • Location:New Delhi, India
  • Interests:working on my website, making friends, cricket.
  • myCENT:70.62

Posted 24 October 2005 - 06:13 AM

I have AMD Athlon 64 bit 3000+ and it is working for me and giving me the performance i want and that too at a lower rate. The only downside of this processor is that it is having less l2 cache and that is of only 512 kb...i would have been better if it was either 1 mb or 2 mb. I dont know how it is possible that processor of speed of 2.0 Ghz is able to compete with Intel's 3.0 Ghz and that is the reason why they call it 3000+..strange huh?

#8 electriic ink

    "Britons never never shall be slaves." As true now as it was in 1740.

  • [MODERATOR]
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,262 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Heaven
  • Interests:Promotion: Aug 4 2005 8.24pm BST
  • myCENT:74.43

Posted 24 October 2005 - 06:51 AM

Notice from cmatcmextra:
Malish and tdktank59 both your posts in this topic have been deleted because the majority of the content of the post was clear plagerism. This is your last warning, next time none of you will have this message to warn you.


#9 DreamCore

    Premium Member

  • Kontributors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 199 posts

Posted 24 October 2005 - 09:43 AM

I am using Amd and I agree, I think its more stable with games than Intel. Intel I think its more for work and programms, not games. So I would preffer AMD if you like gaming. And Intel if you are spending most of you time with C and C++ or making websites or other things.

#10 T100

    Super Member

  • Kontributors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 282 posts

Posted 24 October 2005 - 10:57 AM

I will stick to Intel. Although Athlon outperforms Intel's counterparts in many of the PC mark tests and even Super Pi test, Athlon is not as good in Front Side Bus and memory management. Intel P4 can take up dual channel bandwidth but Athlon is a little bit slow in Ram test. Another bad thing about Athlon is the L2 cache. While intel can provide 2MB cache, most of AMD CPUs only provide 512K, which is only that povided by Athlon. I think CPU's performance depends much on L2 cache and frequency, so I still sticking with Intel.

The worst thing about AMD is that it is trying to market its CPUs by a performance value, say 3000+, but the clock speed is much lower then 3G. I really don't like this strategy. If AMD is so proud of its CPUs, why not compute with Intel on the same ground?

#11 amhso

    Super Member

  • Kontributors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 425 posts
  • Interests:spudguns, rockets, homemade junk

Posted 24 October 2005 - 11:39 PM

T100, on Oct 24 2005, 02:57 AM, said:

I will stick to Intel. Although Athlon outperforms Intel's counterparts in many of the PC mark tests and even Super Pi test, Athlon is not as good in Front Side Bus and memory management. Intel P4 can take up dual channel bandwidth but Athlon is a little bit slow in Ram test. Another bad thing about Athlon is the L2 cache. While intel can provide 2MB cache, most of AMD CPUs only provide 512K, which is only that povided by Athlon. I think CPU's performance depends much on L2 cache and frequency, so I still sticking with Intel.

The worst thing about AMD is that it is trying to market its CPUs by a performance value,  say 3000+, but the clock speed is much lower then 3G. I really don't like this strategy. If AMD is so proud of its CPUs, why not compute with Intel on the same ground?

View Post


The reason why they put 3000+ because they run on a different theory. AMD's specialty is making them run at lower clocks and emulate the actual speed they run at, conserving energy. AMD's have 2mb L2 cache as well, maybe you should do a little more research on a topic. Almost every new AMD 64 cpu provides 1mb L2 cache now. And the biggest difference between these 2 processors, is that for 3000+ you get at the same price as an Intel 3.0ghz, you get 64bit capabilities. You don't seem to get that's the whole new thing. In a few years, most computers will probably be running 64bit. Most servers nowadays run on 64bit processors, but AMD has made the headstart to have them at home for the same cheap price. Xeons and Opterons have used 64 bit for a while, but to get one of those for home use is a waste of money. That's why AMD has their Athlon 64's.

#12 ChonChon

    Newbie

  • Kontributors
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 26 October 2005 - 01:18 AM

in fact, AMD Athlon 64 3000+ is cheaper than Intel P4 3.0GHz (comparing AMD socket 939 and Intel socket 775). that's always been the case, yet AMD has always had, and always have better performance than Intel, thats just the way it is. I have an AMD processor and will NEVER purchace a different type of processor. even when Intel P5 comes out, AMD will unleash such a beast, and it will be cheaper, and have better performance!

ChonChon

#13 punkgamr13

    Newbie [Level 3]

  • Kontributors
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted 26 October 2005 - 02:43 AM

amhso, on Oct 24 2005, 06:39 PM, said:

The reason why they put 3000+ because they run on a different theory. AMD's specialty is making them run at lower clocks and emulate the actual speed they run at, conserving energy. AMD's have 2mb L2 cache as well, maybe you should do a little more research on a topic. Almost every new AMD 64 cpu provides 1mb L2 cache now. And the biggest difference between these 2 processors, is that for 3000+ you get at the same price as an Intel 3.0ghz, you get 64bit capabilities. You don't seem to get that's the whole new thing. In a few years, most computers will probably be running 64bit. Most servers nowadays run on 64bit processors, but AMD has made the headstart to have them at home for the same cheap price. Xeons and Opterons have used 64 bit for a while, but to get one of those for home use is a waste of money. That's why AMD has their Athlon 64's.

View Post


wow.. i was about to say the same thing... i cant believe that people actually say something without knowing what theyre talking about... it may be 2.0 or 2.2 GHz AMD, but its name is in comparison with the intel model's speed
thank u amhso... alas! a smart person!

#14 srbempire

    Newbie [Level 1]

  • Kontributors
  • Pip
  • 17 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 11:37 AM

I've heard that the P4's architechure makes it slower than the Athlon, even though it has higher clock speeds. Evidently the Athlon can do more instructions per cycle or something like that...is there any thruth to this rumor?

#15 _TyIzaeL_

    Newbie [Level 1]

  • Kontributors
  • Pip
  • 20 posts

Posted 16 November 2005 - 11:23 PM

AMD processors render graphics with amazing speed. Also, the new 64-bit processors are amazing. I cannot believe the speed I've experienced with them. Not to mention that AMD is one of the "Underdogs" in computer chips. AMD prices are much lower vs Intel. I have experienced more reliable computing with AMD than any other processor I've tried.

#16 Elegost

    Member [Level 3]

  • Kontributors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Location:Canadian Wilderness
  • Interests:Many things unknown to you :P<br />

Posted 16 November 2005 - 11:27 PM

Ive never had any thing else but Intel processors. But I would like to try an MD next since im really into gaming and that stuff and AMD is muh better tan Intel when it commes to games.

#17 antony2kx

    Newbie [Level 2]

  • Kontributors
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 13 February 2006 - 09:42 PM

i will stick to my amd becuse i have a fast processor and i dont want any thing more than it

#18 nelarozi

    Newbie [Level 2]

  • Kontributors
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 19 February 2006 - 03:22 PM

I know the AMD processors are fast but in my opinion the heat too much! So what would you reccomend?
I was thinking to stay on intel ! They cost less they don't heat too much but they are a little bit slower! But that just me :huh:

#19 Alex-C-

    Newbie

  • Kontributors
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 19 February 2006 - 03:25 PM

AMD Turion 64 Bit,

It does everything I want, and I've never had a problem. Intel use to freeze for me etc.

#20 TanisLinkEragon

    Newbie [Level 1]

  • Kontributors
  • Pip
  • 17 posts

Posted 19 February 2006 - 03:27 PM

Im going to have to say intel, its better for all around use.

#21 nelarozi

    Newbie [Level 2]

  • Kontributors
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 19 February 2006 - 03:36 PM

Now i am really confused! Which Intel or AMD (The model please)

#22 cro-man

    Newbie [Level 2]

  • Kontributors
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Location:Croatia(Zagreb)

Posted 19 February 2006 - 04:26 PM

I prefer AMD , not just beacuse I have AMD but beacuse I do not like Intel , Intel had the monopol in the processor production and when AMD came I choose it just to get rid of Intel :huh: And now AMD is much better (to me presonaly) then Intel even by performances , AMD is just what I need !

#23 Kun

    Newbie [Level 1]

  • Kontributors
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 23 February 2006 - 10:00 AM

I prefer INTEL because of cool INTEL D Processors. I have also one :lol: 840D

#24 zdrigui

    Newbie [Level 2]

  • Kontributors
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 21 March 2006 - 10:20 AM

If your idea is use the CPU with his original values i advice you to use the INTEL .

If you want to buy cheat processors and then overclock them, amd is better as the allow you to get values wich you must spend much more money to get them with intel processors... :)

#25 wansuen

    Advanced Member

  • Kontributors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts

Posted 22 March 2006 - 08:49 PM

I like AMD over Intel for a number of reason, one of the main reasons is simply that you get more for the money that you pay and both are typically stable processor to buy. I currently have an Athlon 64 3000+ which I am very happy with and had no problems with, I also used to have a few Athlon XPs (2500 and 2800) and also a couple of durons (1.3 and 1.6) which all were great. I am not looking forward to getting an Althon X2 over a Pentium D because once again the price differences for similar performance and also the general concensus is that AMD is better for gaming which is one of the major reasons why I continue to upgrade my processor.




Reply to this topic


This post will need approval from a moderator before this post is shown.

  


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users