One doesnt prefer to link to the Germans, but in this isntance I think we should all take note. THG setup an AMD rig and an Intel Equivilant - both dual core, and launched them into testing...solidly. Its now Day 5 and the Intel rig has gone through failure after failure...hardware as simply died out on the toasty chip. Considering the W (i forget the correct name) Specification was increased for the Pentium from 130W to 130W, it appears a critial level has been reached. While the AMD system has been chugging away without a worry or doubt, the Intel rig has died, had corronaries, strokes and a constant migraine.

I ask - AMD Dual Core or Intel Dual Core?

LINKAGE HERE -scroll down half way to see a table of replacments and work carried out on each system.

Dual Cores - for who and for how much? that is the question!


The AMD chip performs better and is better from an architecture standpoint - BUT...
As I have just recently purchased a system (see sig) I can tell you what I was looking for and I think that I represent a certain percentage of the pimprig members.

I wanted a system that would give me as much of the following criteria:
A certain amount of future-proofness
High performance (but desn't have to be insanely high)
SATA II
PCI-Express
Quiet (I have a number of machines in my office and it's starting to get a little noisy)
Can handle gaming but doesn't need to run at the highest res and with all the eye candy.
Most important - would be able to handle a CPU upgrade to the next gen that comes out, or at least some decent upgrade options.

With the price of the AMD dual core starting at $500, no DDR2 support in the near future, another socket change in less that 18 months, the whole concept of getting an AMD seems like a short lifespan system to me.

Intel are about to release the 65nm CPUs soon and the Pentium-M are starting to become a major player in the CPU arena.

The Intel systems are not as gaming oriented as the AMD, but at least they seem to be more future proof. In addition it seems to me that the Intel systems are ready for the next leap in FSB (300MHz?) and with the right memory the performance is very good. I am about to purchase a high end heatsink and VGA cooler which will allow me to break 4.2GHz on the CPU and probably 440MHz on the GPU, and IMHO those numbers are pretty good for a $225 CPU and a $240 GPU.

Are the AMD systems better? they may have the performance advantage but they do not get my vote as the inteligent buy (let the flames begin )

one of your requirments is less noise, well unless you water cool the 130w P4 won't be silent

then you say pentium M but there running at far lower FSB ect than amd or are only compatible with some mediocer asus board with an adaptor.

Quote: Originally Posted by kipman725 then you say pentium M but there running at far lower FSB ect than amd or are only compatible with some mediocer asus board with an adaptor.

the pentium M is a force to be reconned with mate. Not only do they overclock well beyond any Intel Desktop CPU, they also produce blindingly fast PiFast and 3DMark results.....excellent for gaming...they're not so great on the old encoding etc, but for our line of work (or play) they're the muts nuts alongside AMD. Plus the fact they have 2MB cache, and will have 2 cores when Yonah is released.

Beware what u say....

lol no that was in response to the other person saying that AMD chips have a lower FSB which is true but so does the pentium M. I do like the pentium M though... a little too expensive for me still

Quote: Originally Posted by PurpleDiamond Dual Cores - for who and for how much? that is the question! The AMD chip performs better and is better from an architecture standpoint - BUT... As I have just recently purchased a system (see sig) I can tell you what I was looking for and I think that I represent a certain percentage of the pimprig members. I wanted a system that would give me as much of the following criteria: A certain amount of future-proofness High performance (but desn't have to be insanely high) SATA II PCI-Express Quiet (I have a number of machines in my office and it's starting to get a little noisy) Can handle gaming but doesn't need to run at the highest res and with all the eye candy. Most important - would be able to handle a CPU upgrade to the next gen that comes out, or at least some decent upgrade options. With the price of the AMD dual core starting at $500, no DDR2 support in the near future, another socket change in less that 18 months, the whole concept of getting an AMD seems like a short lifespan system to me. Intel are about to release the 65nm CPUs soon and the Pentium-M are starting to become a major player in the CPU arena. The Intel systems are not as gaming oriented as the AMD, but at least they seem to be more future proof. In addition it seems to me that the Intel systems are ready for the next leap in FSB (300MHz?) and with the right memory the performance is very good. I am about to purchase a high end heatsink and VGA cooler which will allow me to break 4.2GHz on the CPU and probably 440MHz on the GPU, and IMHO those numbers are pretty good for a $225 CPU and a $240 GPU. Are the AMD systems better? they may have the performance advantage but they do not get my vote as the inteligent buy (let the flames begin )

even without the DDR2 the a64 beats Intel without a swet you've got to get you P4 over 5 ghz to beat the FX55 so...
the New P4 heat up like hell more then the old athlon xp

sata & PCI-e is already on amd system

now for the dual core with AMD you wont have to change your board (if socket 939) all you will need is an bios update
but intel dual core you will need to change your board again more $$ like always....

AMD always have longer lifespan system on their board then intel ever have

you never had an AMD sytem before , i guess? talking this way....


how about that for a flame wars?


EDIT: forgot to add....

http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1798/

http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1787/

Flame war ,


I knew that this is going to turn into an Intel vs. AMD war... but seriously now.
I was talking from my standpoint which was owning 2 old systems both with SDRAM - one a palomino 1700+ AMD and the other a P3 1.2GHz tualatin. Yes I have an AMD system too as you can see.

Personally I like the Intel multitasking better than the AMD.

I know that the 939 socket has sata and PCIe, but only if you were lucky enough to get the nvidia chipset you get dual core support (there is a problem with some of the Via).

Heat and prescott - a match made in hell... . The 600 series are a little better but far from being cool - still you can slap a serious heatsink like a XP-120 with a low RPM fan and you would be fine even with an overclock.

But back to my main point - which is that it seems to me that for somebody looking for a system that will support the next gen of CPUs it makes more sense going with an Intel system.

BTW Aopen have a pentium-M mobo that seems like an interesting option for anyone going down that path.

Quote: Originally Posted by PurpleDiamond Flame war , I knew that this is going to turn into an Intel vs. AMD war... but seriously now. I was talking from my standpoint which was owning 2 old systems both with SDRAM - one a palomino 1700+ AMD and the other a P3 1.2GHz tualatin. Yes I have an AMD system too as you can see. Personally I like the Intel multitasking better than the AMD. I know that the 939 socket has sata and PCIe, but only if you were lucky enough to get the nvidia chipset you get dual core support (there is a problem with some of the Via). Heat and prescott - a match made in hell... . The 600 series are a little better but far from being cool - still you can slap a serious heatsink like a XP-120 with a low RPM fan and you would be fine even with an overclock. But back to my main point - which is that it seems to me that for somebody looking for a system that will support the next gen of CPUs it makes more sense going with an Intel system. BTW Aopen have a pentium-M mobo that seems like an interesting option for anyone going down that path.

Don't warry about it i'm just joking around
i don't realy care if someone like Intel over AMD or AMD over Intel

as long as your happy with what you got that is only things that matters

but for now the most powerfull cpu around is the FX55 (at less that was a fiew weeks ago)

i like AMD & i will go A64 next week but maybe in a year or two i'll go Intel? never know?

cheer!

Amd pwnz intel for a alto of reasons. The fact that intels coolers can hardly keep up with the procssors heat output if they case temp is over 32c is pretty sad. Throttle themselves down.

But yeah, intel is more expensive(%30/%40) and offers the same or worse performance. Boo erns to them.

Quote: Originally Posted by PurpleDiamond But back to my main point - which is that it seems to me that for somebody looking for a system that will support the next gen of CPUs it makes more sense going with an Intel system. BTW Aopen have a pentium-M mobo that seems like an interesting option for anyone going down that path.

Not to diss intel any but as far as future proof they are far from it ddr2 support is a plus but not right now considering the latency timeings are horable most regular pc3200 outpreforms ddr2 in a wide rand of benchmarks to also consider the fact that amd has been designing there 64--32bit hybrid systems as a upgrade system from the ground up. thats been one of there goals from the begining seeing as there dual core systems only require a socket 939 board and a bios upgrade. the socket 754 boards and systems were only ment as a budget option kind of like how the duron was with the athlon or the celleron with the p-4 or p-3.

Quote: Originally Posted by PurpleDiamond Flame war , I knew that this is going to turn into an Intel vs. AMD war... but seriously now. I was talking from my standpoint which was owning 2 old systems both with SDRAM - one a palomino 1700+ AMD and the other a P3 1.2GHz tualatin. Yes I have an AMD system too as you can see. Personally I like the Intel multitasking better than the AMD. I know that the 939 socket has sata and PCIe, but only if you were lucky enough to get the nvidia chipset you get dual core support (there is a problem with some of the Via). Heat and prescott - a match made in hell... . The 600 series are a little better but far from being cool - still you can slap a serious heatsink like a XP-120 with a low RPM fan and you would be fine even with an overclock. But back to my main point - which is that it seems to me that for somebody looking for a system that will support the next gen of CPUs it makes more sense going with an Intel system. BTW Aopen have a pentium-M mobo that seems like an interesting option for anyone going down that path.

I see you have 5400 ram and the p5wd2 Asus MOBO. What are the Vcore settings on this CPU,PCIE and Memory? My system is running the ram in pc2-4300 single channel mode what is yours showing using CPU-Z or at boot up. I am using the Gallatin(?) 3.46 EE CPU. I have ocz 667 memory and would like to run it at 667+. Thanks for any comments and I agree. After evaluation of needs versus future upgrades the P5wd2 MOBO with Intel provides more flexibility without obsolesents moving forward. With the exception of the SLI future. The latest ASUS MOBO has handled that need.

A few remarks:

1. The original post on this thread was about the THG stress test of dual core systems and there were a lot of problems with the intel system - they finally figured out what was wrong. They installed the wrong heatsink on the Intel chip - they used one for a Pentium-D on an Extreme Edition, and there is a big difference between them (RPM and copper core size). After installing the right heatsink it's working fine.

2. The FX-55 kicks A$$, but it costs a lot. Most of us use chips that are a lot cheaper while we rely on overclocking to get to the performance level that we seek. My $225 chip overclocks to 3.9GHz on stock voltage and with the stock cooler. I think that comparing it to a $800 chip is not really apples to apples...

3. The stock Intel heatsink was not designed with overclocking in mind - no argument there. If the case temp gets too hot it can't handle it well. My office is the warmest room in the house and in the summer (until the central air is installed) it's an inferno 87-89F....
I had to go back to stock speed because it's really hot. Mobo temp is 39C and in idle the CPU is 50C.

4. Harry, you didn't mention what mobo you are using. the vcore according to cpu-z is 1.464V.
The mem is set to 2.1V - corsair specs.
PCIe - good question, there are some weird settings in the bios which I think are PCIe voltage but they are called "Slot power" the options are: Auto, light, normal, heavy, heavier (WTF?!)
For the system to run in dual channel the memory sticks need to be in specific slots. In my case both sticks need to be in the yellow banks or the black banks. The memory settings are 4-4-4-12 , 2.1V, FSB 260 and memory running at 780. This was when the system was overclocked. Before the hot weather I was running with these numbers for hours playing doom 3 and the system was rock stable.

5. Is AMD better than Intel?
Maybe
Am I happy with my system?
Yes
Is it the right choice for you?
Beats me...