Question:
Hi
I dont want this thread to turn into a real geeky thing but I wanted to know which processor would be better for a home pc that will be used for the following:
- surfing the net
- watching DVDs
- Using Office packages
- Occasional Gaming but not serious stuff
Ive always been a P4 (2g) person but am willing to switch if I can decent performance for less money!
Also what AMD would be on par with a 2g P4?
Cheers as usual!
Answers:
Any modern processor will handle the above easily. What's wrong with the P4 you have?
Answers:
you cannot compare Amd or Intal with each over any more they are both good ,has albertross says what wrong with your p4 2ghz '
you can always go to a AMD Athlon/Sempron 64 put you will nead a new motherboard ,Graphics Cards, ram,and almost curtain a new psu OR
an intel Prescott and you will Probably need the same ,
sorry put i am a Amd fan
Answers:
cheers guys
nothing wrong with my P4 -its just a project pc that im building and wanted to explore if an AMD chip could save me money without too much compromise on performance - esp as P4 chips and mobos are very expensive I wondered if I could save some cash.
Answers:
you can save a lot of money with amd and get very good performance and there is no compromise on performance compaired to intel any more (some say it the over way round now )put want do i now i like Amd
Answers:
The massive 'who is best' arguement about Intel vs AMD - but to be truthfull there is no actual x is the winner! Its all personal preference. I prefer Intel to AMD but find them to be alot more expensive. AMD offer close-enough the same performance to Intel chips but at a cheaper price! Also, AMD are easier to overclock (but thats another issue!)
Anyway I am a proud AMD user on my custom builds - but am happy with my Pentium M processor in my laptop!
Answers:
As far as desktop systems are concerned, you'll find AMD generally better. Both will suit certain tasks better (gaming, video encoding etc...) but overall the AMD Athlon64 (single and dual core) is more impressive than the Intel equivalent.
It uses far less power, and hence runs much cooler. Intel Northwoods were ok, but Prescott cores are known to run very hot.
It's generally, across the board, a faster cpu. Especially for something such as gaming.
It will cost you less, and most of them are very easy to overclock. If you're by any means a "gamer" it's definitely the cpu of choice.
At the moment, a single or dual core Athlon 64 is probably (unless you want something specialised) the best cpu to go for.
Answers:
Are there any desktop replacement laptops with dual core Athlon 64 processors? Would they run quieter than Intel? Have had bad experience with loud Pent M laptops.
Answers:
Its not the CPU making noise, its the fan making the noise that keeps the CPU cooler.
You can buy better quiter fans, but cost more.
Answers:
We have 4 PC's and 2 laptops running a mixture of Intel and AMD processors.
2 of them are only P3 500MHz but they still perform very well for internet use and general "Homework" machines.
The only moan is that the AMD powered laptop is far noisier than the Intel powered one, but as already mentioned it is the fan that makes the noise.
The AMD chip runs a bit hotter so needs cooling more.
Intel V AMD is a personal choice, and may help you keep to a lower budget as Intel cpu's always seem to be more expensive.
Answers:
Are there any desktop replacement laptops with dual core Athlon 64 processors? Would they run quieter than Intel? Have had bad experience with loud Pent M laptops.
Ah, laptops are a different kettle of fish. I think Intel have the edge there, and it's an area of the market they seem to dominate. I don't know a huge amount about laptops, but the Core Duo processor by Intel seems to be the way to go.
In a desktop though an AMD Athlon64 is usually preferable. I can only think of a few reasons where an Intel would be preferable. AMD won't hugely be changing architecture though over the next year (apart from AM2 for DDR2 support). Intel are set for a change with "Conroe" later in the year, but you'll have to wait if you want to see how that turns out.
Answers:
I personally prefer Intel and they seem much better for encoding, but it is personal preference.
If you ask a bunch of gamers they will probably all say AMD, but I have had no problems gaming with intel.
Littleange_com
Answers:
AMD every time
on most benchmarking tests AMD chips outperform intel in almost every way
Plus they are cheaper in most cases
Answers:
on most benchmarking tests AMD chips outperform intel in almost every way
Rather a sweeping statement, surely? Since internally they work somewhat differently, and each firm measures CPU speed differently, how can you perform a fair assessment?
An apple is rounder than a pear, but is it less curvy?
John
Answers:
Rather a sweeping statement, surely? Since internally they work somewhat differently, and each firm measures CPU speed differently, how can you perform a fair assessment?
Going by a similar analogy, Ferrari's are different from Jaguar's yet they are still reviewed and compared despite the different specs. By price is usually a good method for cpu's.
Generally speaking AMD's are superior for gaming, although for multi-tasking (ie any form of encoding) Intel's are better. I personally prefer Athlon 64's at the moment as you get more bang for your buck, they use less power and run cooler.
AMD's roadmap for this year though looks rather bleak (apart from AM2). I think this year Intel will make a considerable comeback with Conroe due out around Autumn.
Answers:
Maybe this site will help,
Down to preference really...
Answers:
AMDs are the best current chip in terms of performance and running cool. Some of Intel's lower-end stuff offers quite high bangs per buck, though.
AMD may be on top at the moment, but Intel is replacing the current Pentium 4 with a whole new CPU architecture in just a couple of months. The initial benchmarks of the Pentium 4 replacement (known as "Conroe") indicate that it will beat pretty much anything AMD has to offer at the moment by a good margin.
I wouldn't buy now if I were you. AMD is bringing out a new architecture as well (known as "AM2") which requires new memory and a new motherboard (but doesn't really boost performance that much - it's more of an initial step for their future strategy). Wait a couple of months and then buy if you can.
Answers:
AMDs are the best current chip in terms of performance and running cool. Some of Intel's lower-end stuff offers quite high bangs per buck, though.
AMD may be on top at the moment, but Intel is replacing the current Pentium 4 with a whole new CPU architecture in just a couple of months. The initial benchmarks of the Pentium 4 replacement (known as "Conroe") indicate that it will beat pretty much anything AMD has to offer at the moment by a good margin.
I wouldn't buy now if I were you. AMD is bringing out a new architecture as well (known as "AM2") which requires new memory and a new motherboard (but doesn't really boost performance that much - it's more of an initial step for their future strategy). Wait a couple of months and then buy if you can.
This will probably bring prices down on a lot of the chips/boards etc that are out now, so would make it a good reason to buy
Also by the time you will upgrade in a year or two time you might as well upgrade all the other components anyway (ie mother board and memory), so the above point becomes null
If you were always waiting for the new technology to arrive then youd never buy a PC
And yes the CNET benchmarks were the ones i was referring too, i was just posting in a hurry
Answers:
I'm a Pentium 4 3.2ghz prescott user, i can't knock it, its awesome.