Intel or AMD processor?

[steve18]

I'm looking to get a new Dell computer. Is an Intel processor better than AMD or is there really no difference? We use the computer mostly for internet/email, real light movie/photo editing and Excel spreadsheets.

Thanks,
Steve

[Byron]

Steve,

For what you plan to do with the computer either one will be just fine. You might find that a computer built with an AMD processor will be a little less expensive even if all the other components are the same in both computers compared to the computer built with Intel chip.

[Gonzo]

The original Windows applications were written against the Intel processor instruction set.

Is that still true?

Are the assemblers and compilers used completely compatible with both Intel and AMD?

gonzo

[sherob]

I have a HP laptop with AMD chips in it... great box. I have a Dell desktop with Intel Duo Core... great box. I can't tell a difference in performance :rolleyes: I'm sure there is if I ran the right app, but for day to day use for me, there isn't one other than price :) The AMD's are cheaper, run great, haven't had an issue with any XP OS or products :)

[steve18]

Thanks guys for the info.

That was one of my concerns, whether Window's programs were designed with the Intel processor in mind.

Steve

[KrazyKooter]

For what you're doing, I don't think it would matter for either. In benchmarks (speed tests), the Intels have an advantage, but I don't see too much difference in the real world.

I would look more at getting either a dual-core or quad-core processor as opposed to a single core processor. I don't believe AMD has their quad-cores available, but Intel does. A quad core may be more than what you're wanting to spend, but the Dual Cores are great. This would be either the AMD X2 or the Intel Core 2 Duo.

[swilliams1005]

I've always been told that AMD's are good for hardcore gaming and the Intels dont do so well.

[KrazyKooter]

I've always been told that AMD's are good for hardcore gaming and the Intels dont do so well.

That was true until Intel released the Core 2 Duo. It has re-taken the performance crown. AMD should release their new offering before the end of the year, so we'll see if that statement will be true then.

[johnSTamela]

I bought a Compaq laptop a few years ago with AMD. Big mistake. The temp of AMD was so high we couldn't use it as a "lap"top! I've heard the newer ones are better now. Besides that, the heat damaged the DVD player. YMMV. If it's in a pc, I probably wouldn't know the difference.

[mshihrer]

Something I have been working on, a computer program to generate 3d terrain using real USGS height data, exposed an interesting bug in the programming language I am using, which is Dark Basic Pro, just a wrapper around DirectX. Anyway, I have an AMD, and everything ran fine on it, but on an Intel machine, it would not create the terrain. The AMD did the math as expected, but the Intel would "round" the floating point number down, each time through the main loop. I confirmed this on alot of other Intel machines, including the latest Core Duos. In a nutshell, I had to rewrite my code to compensate for this, and reported the bug to the developers of DBPro. This instance alone has me convinced that AMD handles floating point numbers better than Intel, but of course, there may be some processor specific code in the source for the language I am using that is causing this bug. Intel for sure has the speed advantage right now, but I'll take correct results over speed any day.

[sennister]

For your use it won't matter. Build both and buy the cheaper of the two...

Personally all I run is Intel but that was because I had some issues with earlier AMDs. Those bugs have been worked out many years ago. My last 4 computers have been Intel only because I got very good pricing on them through Intel. It was a partner discount. If I was paying normal pricing I wouldn't have had a problem with AMD.

In fact here at work we just bought 5 HP Servers that each have 4 dual core AMDs (that is 8 processors in each box in simple terms) and 32GB of RAM. We have another 3 that we will be ordering in the near future. These will be running 75 copies of Windows 2003 Server R2 in a VMware VI3 environment but that is getting off topic.

[Schavlan]

I just got a laptop
It has the intel duo core, but I would have been happy with AMD as I've had them before.
Here's what you REALLY need to worry about. Microsoft VISTA. What a hog.
Make sure you get at least VISTA Home Premium. Don't get Home Basic.
And make sure you get at least 2 GB of memory.
I bought mine with 1GB installed, and I had a lot of problems running simple programs like MS Word.
I upgraded to 2 GB--for $42 per GB (wow, memory has gotten cheap). With 2GB Installed---everything is running well. Even though Vista is a hog, there's now plenty of headroom in the memory

[sherob]

I just got a laptop
It has the intel duo core, but I would have been happy with AMD as I've had them before.
Here's what you REALLY need to worry about. Microsoft VISTA. What a hog.
Make sure you get at least VISTA Home Premium. Don't get Home Basic.
And make sure you get at least 2 GB of memory.
I bought mine with 1GB installed, and I had a lot of problems running simple programs like MS Word.
I upgraded to 2 GB--for $42 per GB (wow, memory has gotten cheap). With 2GB Installed---everything is running well. Even though Vista is a hog, there's now plenty of headroom in the memory

+1... I meant Vista on my laptop, not XP :rolleyes: I'd get the AMDX2 and spend the extra $$$ on memory (4gb) :)

[steve18]

Thanks for all the great info! It will definitely help in my decision making.

Steve

[Bob Hughes]

I recently bought a desktop on Dell Outlet for $300 with free shipping that has the AMD dual core and I like it.

Mini tower
250GB hard drive
1GB ram
256MB video card (for Vista)
7 slot card reader
R/W DVD
Home Premium Vista

Then I sold my 4 year old CPU on ebay and pocketed $189. Small difference between the two machines in dollars but big in technology. I love Dell Outlet.

[Mark]

Each of the major manufacturers have custom complier extensions that allow their system to run windows (as well as windows will run: yes that is a gratuitous windows bash! :D )

So; buy the system with the most ram, hard disk and wide aspect screen that you can afford.
And then upgrade the ram to the maximum you can afford or the most the system will allow.

Mark

[Scaredy Cat]

I settled for a good price and a 17" monitor on my laptop.
Who needs the latest 3d games on a laptop?

for a = 1 to 99
print "STs rule"
next a

[MileHigh]

I would stick with the Intel........

Just make sure it's in a Macintosh. :bow1:

Oh no! Now I've gone and done it. Mac vs PC topic. Almost worse than Harley vs Honda. :eek:

Flame suit on.:)

[Scaredy Cat]

Mac is great if you only need photoshop. And like white goods to match your fridge.
I'm old enough to remember Quark Express. Had Apples. Prefer other fruits now.

[tkresler]

+200,000,000,000 on the Mac comment. Total cost of ownership over a 5 year life on the computer, the Mac wins hands down every time. I'm typing this on a 4 year old Mac right now, and the closest I have come to an upgrade is getting a 17" display. It just works, does everything I need (I'm a computer geek), as well as my wife and my two daughters.

Buy it, forget about it.

Tim

[Mark]

Processor wars are bad enough; OS wars are even worse.

since this wasn't a question about which is better... why not give the OS wars a break...

[Jefro]

If you are considering a new computer...

An article in the business section last week mentioned that as of Dec 31st of 2007, Microsoft will stop selling XP to vendors for installation in new computers.

However, due to Vista being such a bloated operating system with very little to offer in the way of true improvements, such as a new file system or revamp of the outdated registry system, retail sales of XP are through the roof and many people are wiping Vista off brand new machines to install XP.
Acer, Lenovo, Dell, HP and many others still sell systems with XP Pro so end users don't have to buy all new Vista compatible software, and many businesses refuse to upgrade to Vista due to Vista-incompatible, expensive and complex software like Oracle and SAP.

Microsoft has announced it will no longer offer any support for XP at the the end of 2008. Bill Gates is pushing Vista hard because he just doesn't have enough money yet! :mad:
Jefro.

[ChipSTer]

...So; buy the system with the most ram, hard disk and wide aspect screen that you can afford.
And then upgrade the ram to the maximum you can afford or the most the system will allow.

Mark

+1
:cool:

[KrazyKooter]

Actually, a Mac would probably be great for what you're wanting to do. I've been contemplating getting one (got an ST instead). I've heard they come with iLife, which is supposed to have an awesome video editing suite with it. It may cost more, but it does come with software that you may not get with the Windows machine.

[STill Fiddlin]

I bought a Compaq laptop a few years ago with AMD. Big mistake. The temp of AMD was so high we couldn't use it as a "lap"top! ....That's why most companies call them notebooks now, and not laptops. Heat is a problem regardless of processor, and a lot of the heat you feel on your lap is actually from the hard drive, which typically doesn't benefit from active cooling by the fan. So, in some ways, getting hot on your lap is probably a good thing, because you should put it on a table. Whatever you do, don't use it on soft surfaces that will block airflow. Heat kills notebooks.

The first rule is avoid low end offerings by Intel and AMD (Celeron or Sempron). XP is *ok* with those processors, if you've got a recent one and sufficient memory (1GB), but I wouldn't put Vista on a system with one of those 90# weaklings.

For a desktop, I'd get whatever you can afford, All the dual core processors should be adequate.

If I'm buying a notebook and battery life is one of your top 3 criteria, I would get 100% Intel (usually branded Centrino), meaning CPU, chipset and wireless. Power management is key to battery life. Unlike Intel, AMD doesn't make a chipset and wireless specifically for its processors. With an AMD system, you get a grab-bag of components - chipset from nVidia, wireless from Broadcom, or some other collection. Takes longer to optimize those configurations, and time is money, so you're less likely to get that optimization on AMD systems, since they tend to target lower price-points, anyway. Now, I'm talking battery life differences of probably less than 10%, but if you're on planes and in meetings a lot, it adds up. For home users, it's probably not as important.

[sennister]

If we are starting to talk about other specs....

I agree if you are going to run Vista you need a few things...

SYSTEM RAM 2GB Nothing less. That in fact is a little on the low side but will run fine.

Video RAM 128MB and no less on your Graphics Card. You can't turn on all of Vista's features unless you have 128MB of video memory.

Hard Drive as much as you can afford. If you are looking at storing video content at all it eats it up fast.

The rest doesn't matter all that much.

As for XP or Vista. Well that is kind of a hard decision. I would say you are going to be fine with Vista. I am running Vista Ultimate on one machine at home and XP on 4 machines, 2003 Server R2 on 2 machines and Windows Home Server on another. I have pretty much ran all the versions out there. Home Basic will be fine to start with and it is easy to upgrade later without loosing anything should you decide you want the added features of Home Premium. Basically the files are there you just type in a new serial number and it turns it on.

As for the bugs with Vista. I'm not going to lie and say there are none. Heck I have to deal with them every day at work. That is why I have my new Vista machine at my desk and right next to it is my old XP machine. I have to switch back to that one at least once a day to run some management tools that do not function in Vista. It is either that or connect to one of my servers and run them from there.

However by buying a preloaded computer you won't have to deal with many of the driver issues that people had to fight with older hardware when they upgraded them to Vista. Those issues have been worked out by your manufacturer and the fact that the hardware is new. Also the applications and utilities that I have issues with in Vista will not be ones that you will ever use. Unless you choose to upgrade your home network to 2000+ workstations and 160+ servers. It is true that Vista is a big OS that requires a powerful machine to run but you are not talking about doing anything that crazy so I wouldn't worry about running Vista as long as you don't short change the hardware from the get go. No need to go all out. Somewhere in the middle is all that you need.

[dteel]

If you have specific AMD/Intel processors you would like to compare, then I would use Tom's Hardware Guide (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=476&chart=166) to do so. I have used this tool on many occasions to help me decide what components to purchase so I could get the most bang for my buck. The guide is pretty useful even if you just want to browse the current set of processors for their relative performance. I love Tom's Hardware Guide, the sight is an invaluable source of information.

[NCrider]

If you have specific AMD/Intel processors you would like to compare, then I would use Tom's Hardware Guide (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=476&chart=166) to do so. I have used this tool on many occasions to help me decide what components to purchase so I could get the most bang for my buck. The guide is pretty useful even if you just want to browse the current set of processors for their relative performance. I love Tom's Hardware Guide, the sight is an invaluable source of information.

+1 on Tom's Hardware.

As for processors I prefer AMD. I'm constantly upgrading and switching things around for gaming and AMD's are just better/faster, I don't care what the benchmark tests show. I've heard this same statement made by many gamers.

As to the comment on heat, yes AMD's used to run hotter, now that award goes to Intel. I have an AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 Windsor Dual Core that idles at 39c and gaming gets up to 45c max.

It's pretty much it's a game of Spades, they both pull out their "trump" cards at different times. Competition is a good thing.

[tarfin]

Sennister gave some great advice in #26 re: Vista. People said the same things of Windows 2000 that they are now saying of Vista. Like Win2K I would NOT upgrade for the hell of it and only do so when you got a new machine that had it pre-installed. My employer is using a "soft rollout" staring in late 2008 for Vista meaning when new machines are placed it will have Vista on it instead of upgrading the current OS on machines. XP was worth upgrading to from Win2K, but I don't see anything in Vista that you can't wait for a new machine to bring to you. :)