Which Processor?

Franky · 14-02-2006, 03:48 PM

Well it's that time again where the computer is becoming a little more than a nuiscance and it's time to upgrade.

The problem is that at the moment I have a laptop so upgrading is impossible but instead of replacing it with a brand new one i've decided to go upmarket for a multimedia desktop with all the goodies. My folks have a dell and having had good experience with it I may go with them. 2 computers on their site have caught my eye, the 9150 and the 5150 with a few upgraded options but the main difference is that the 9150 has a 3.2GHz dual core processor and the 5150 has the 3.4GHz HT and is a little cheaper. Having not bought a computer lately i'm not up to date with new technology so if someone could explain to me the differences between the two processors and which would be better for me.

My main activities would be dvd burning, gaming and of course net surfing but basically I need something that can handle these without too much fuss.

Thanks for your help

M14A-Mclaren · 14-02-2006, 03:56 PM

I would always say go with AMD, better processors IMO and they're not one of the many nasty American corporations, well maybe less of.

Que the guy to mention overheating.

Perana · 14-02-2006, 04:28 PM

I would go for an AMD CPU over a P4.

Compared to AMD Processors the P4 runs hotter and is less efficient... In saying that I have had no trouble with my "Northwood" P4 2.4 Machine and also AMD did have their fair share of overheating problems frying CPU's and mobo's a while back. But in the present time AMD CPU's are so much better than anything in the P4 range.

My next PC will probably be a Dothan core P-M based machine. Mainly because these CPU's are quite efficient and run very cool, and hence very quiet. Pity socket479 desktop mainboards arent too common yet.

14-02-2006, 04:02 PM

OMG AMD is not a better processer Is there a AMD in a Apple Mac .....LOL

Paxton · 14-02-2006, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stampy

OMG AMD is not a better processer Is there a AMD in a Apple Mac .....LOL

Your point being? I use a PPC Mac, and there is nothing wrong with it. Unless you have experience with a Intel Core Duo chip, then don't make jokes like that.

My Choice is either a Core Duo® Intel Chip, or an AMD 6400+ (which is the chip that I wished Apple went with in the new MacBooks and iMac.

Kapn_Kiwi · 14-02-2006, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paxton

My Choice is either a Core Duo® Intel Chip, or an AMD 6400+ (which is the chip that I wished Apple went with in the new MacBooks and iMac.

a 6400+? That'd cost hojillions.

Kapn_Kiwi · 14-02-2006, 04:11 PM

I totally misread that, woops.
AMD Make some decent processors though. Mine's quite decent.

14-02-2006, 04:17 PM

Intel makes Apple better

Franky · 14-02-2006, 04:17 PM

Well I know absolutely nothing about AMD processors, never had one before but I hear they are better at keeping cool

Franky · 14-02-2006, 04:32 PM

Is there any companies such as dell where you can customize your pc to how you want it and can select an AMD option.

Hitman · 14-02-2006, 04:41 PM

If it were me, I would go into your local PC store and tell them want you want the PC for and then let them give you a quote, The problem with Dell/HP/Compaq and the other manufacturers is that they dont like you upgrading the PC, they want you to keep it for a few years, and then buy a completely new system, which obviously equals more money in their pocket.

Lukeyson · 14-02-2006, 04:55 PM

i tryed both, went for P4, i do alot of video rendering, AMD couldnt hack it and died

vztrt · 14-02-2006, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR8fella

i tryed both, went for P4, i do alot of video rendering, AMD couldnt hack it and died

AMD's main downfall is their video rendering capability. Intel always beat them on this. Mind you I like the AMD processor better than Intel IMO.
For what you want to do both will do a good job, just keep in mind some games have had trouble with dual core processors, but there should be a patch to fix them up.
Personally if you want to do gaming your best bet is to not get the fastest processor but get a slightly slower one and spend more money on your video card. Saying that don't go a pre packaged computer. Goto a computer shop and make one up as you can get what you need and much better advice.

If you want some reading on good computers try Toms Hardware Guide

pertuan · 14-02-2006, 09:14 PM

I would go for an AMD64 over a P4 any day. AMDs are more power efficient and they dont act as a heater.

pauljh74 · 14-02-2006, 11:09 PM

In terms of choosing between the 2 processors mentioned by Franky, I'd go the single core 3.4GHz HT CPU over the dual core. Intel's dual core chips aren't as good as AMD, and dual core only gives benefits to people that need to do alot of multitasking. If you're gaming you'd be better off with 1 CPU core capable of higher speeds per CPU, otherwise with dual core you have one CPU working hard running the game and the other handling stuff like OS overheads and a few other processes taking it easy. Unless gaming software is written to take advantage of dual core processors, they will be less efficient than single core CPUs.

If you go AMD, they are better bang for the buck. The Intel 3.4 GHz (P4 650) costs $409 compared to the AMD 3700+ at $359. The Intel 940 dual core costs $659. If you need support, then get a Dell if you want. Generally Intel graphics aren't very good for gaming. The X300 or X600 on offer from Dell for the 5150 - pick the X600, but even this is still an average gaming graphics card

Kapn_Kiwi · 15-02-2006, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pertuan

I would go for an AMD64 over a P4 any day. AMDs are more power efficient and they dont act as a heater.

That's a lie.
That said, they're not as hot as P4s. (I've had fairly recent experience with both)

pertuan · 15-02-2006, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapn_Kiwi

That's a lie.
That said, they're not as hot as P4s. (I've had fairly recent experience with both)

Well if you go Watt for Watt, the AMD will perform better than the P4. The P4 with its 30 stage pipelines now are a joke. The Netburst architecture is failing and intel are already acknowledging that by moving to the achitecture which started out as the Banias. The Netburst architecture made its debut in 1999. It was at a time where the market was still looking at MHz as the performance indicator. By having a (then 20) 30 stage pipeline, it enabled them to pump up the clock speed to ridiculous heights but delivered no actual gain in performance. This lead to an increase in power consumption. All heat but no go is the basic jist of it.

If you want video encoding/editing, then yes, a P4 will be the way to go because alot of video applications are using the SSE3 instruction set to accelerate the data processing. But for everyday use, I'd say that the AMD is more effective.

DivHunter · 15-02-2006, 12:43 PM

AMD FX 60 *drool*

or just an AMD64 X2 3 up to 4800 if you don't want to spend over 1k on just the processor :P

Deadman · 15-02-2006, 02:13 PM

AMD for Desktops, Intel for Notebooks. No questions.

Although in about 12 months I wouldn't be supprised if the answer is Intel for both.

DivHunter · 15-02-2006, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadman

AMD for Desktops, Intel for Notebooks. No questions.

Although in about 12 months I wouldn't be supprised if the answer is Intel for both.

If that did happen I would be surprised if AMD didn't release something faster in less than 2 weeks.

foxtrot · 15-02-2006, 03:12 PM

lol he asks for advice and it becomes AMD vs Intel thread. It's like Holden vs Ford hahaha

Yes I suppose AMD is more consistent in performance than Intel CPU's but never the less im an Intel Kid

AMD on work computer (im on now).. dads got AMD i built him... but only reason why ... back in P4 vs Amd 1800+ to 2700+ days the AMD's were sooooooooooooooooo damn cheap

dads 2600+ was about 160 bucks about 2 years ago I think and the motherboard around 100

my 2.8Ghz P4 (533mhz bus.. forget the codename) was 500 bucks!! (about 3-4 years ago?)

the motherboard to run it was a lot more expensive to (mind you i got a full size more upgradable one not a baby board)

Go AMD and save dollars, pentiums cost more coz they're better :P

DivHunter · 15-02-2006, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foxtrot

Go AMD and save dollars, pentiums cost more coz they're better :P

if by better you mean slower then all good

:

foxtrot · 15-02-2006, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fairmont99

if by better you mean slower then all good

:

Ka pffft you are very one sided.

Each brand has it's own strengths and weaknesses, im fairly sure for any video encoding/ decoding Intel wins hands down

I was joking when I said Pentium cost more because they are better.. for some reason i just prefer them. neither brand is "better"

foxtrot · 15-02-2006, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fairmont99

if by better you mean slower then all good

:

Oh

and did you mean

Slower, Steadier, more reliable :P

You know those races with a spoon in your mouth and an egg on the end
What's better .. the guy who gets to the end fast but drops a stack of eggs on the way

or the guy who comes in just behind with the same egg from the start

hahaha what a weird way to put it

DivHunter · 15-02-2006, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foxtrot

Oh

and did you mean

Slower, Steadier, more reliable :P

You know those races with a spoon in your mouth and an egg on the end
What's better .. the guy who gets to the end fast but drops a stack of eggs on the way

or the guy who comes in just behind with the same egg from the start

hahaha what a weird way to put it

Actually if you look at the way the architechture has evolved it would be the Intels that just try and go as fast as possible. Ramping up the clock speed in an attempt to go faster but failing because the AMDs are so much more efficient. They both work, Intel just have used some dodgy technology. Hyper-Threading anyone? LOL at them going into Macs and the software not working. That and their adds insulting their largest customer base.

foxtrot · 15-02-2006, 03:59 PM

lol what's this about insulting their largest customer base!?!?

luke · 15-02-2006, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foxtrot

lol what's this about insulting their largest customer base!?!?

I think fairmont99 is referring to the tv advert about Intel chips running a mac... Saying that "Before now it has been doing the same boring little tasks, day after day" etc.
and that it can now be found inside a Mac "Where it can do so much more"

Thus insulting to Windows users who use Intel processors... i.e. their largest customer base.

Hope I got that one right

Back on topic... Go the AMD!!!

:

luke

ON_DUBS · 15-02-2006, 04:01 PM

dont listen to intel/micro$oft fan boyz. get yourself a nice new athlon 64.

**Uncle_Ken** · 15-02-2006, 10:27 PM

I'm happy with my AMD 64bit 3800 but I did pay for it.
I think what ever you get will be "better" than what you have now.
If moneys tight cut back on the CPU and spend more on graphics
Thats what I'd do.
Uncle Ken

ON_DUBS · 15-02-2006, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle_Ken

If moneys tight cut back on the CPU and spend more on graphics

you gotta be kidding, you should buy the best damn cpu you can afford. graphics can always be updated later. to update a cpu you might have to buy a new motherboard.

also note that a top-end graphics card will suffer a bottleneck effect if the cpu isnt up to scratch.