Hi guys, I've been watching this site for a while and you all seem like awesome people. I got into computers heavily a couple years back and now I'm looking forward to getting a new pc. Im a true gamer at heart and Ive heard a lot of people say that AMD rules the gaming world. Intel seems to have more supporting it though, so what really is the difference? Also, Ive looked into Dual Core for the AMD and HT for the Intel and they seem to be the same thing. Are they just the counterparts for the companies, or are there differences? And for my final question, how much difference does it make that AMD tends to run a couple ghz under the Intel processors? Maybe they are matched up now and I just havent seen them, but last I checked AMD was pumping processors in the 2-3 ghz range while Intel was putting out 3-4 ghz. Thanks in advance for the feedback!

WELCOME

i beat the welcome wagon

wait for the new chips then decide theres mad compition coming

AMD for the win

amd... reverse hyperthreading

Where to start . . . . . ohh yeah, WELCOME!!! The rest of the welcome wagon should be around the corner. Be sure to check out the rules, as well as the Fold@Home section of the forums.

To start, AMD and Intel have dual core solutions. They are excatly as the name states; 2 cores in one package. Hyper Threading is an extra set of registers on the CPU, and the OS (prodided it is up to date) will see the standard core and a second 'virtual' core. You can set programs to run on either core, much like a dual core processor, but dual core processors have the 2 cores each having their own L2 cache as well as other caches, registers, and whatnot. The problem with multiple cores is that games (or other programs) not designed to utilize them will either use 100% of 1 core or split the percentage across the cores. I am still trying to learn about manipulating multiple cores at this time.

As for the GHZ question, you are comparing apples to oranges. AMD 64 are 64 bit processors. There are two 64 bit lanes running between the memory and the CPU. 64 bit processors can generally handle 32 bit programs faster than a 32 processor at the same bus and clock speed. There are a ton of other variables that are involved, and when you are talking about overclocking, it gets even more hectic. Keep reading through our forums and I am sure there is alot to learn, which will likely leave you with even more questions than when you started!

Haha, thanks for the warm welcome. I'm looking forward to becoming more involved and learning a ton! Thanks also for the information wrath. I don't really know much about AMD...sadly, lol. I've already looked into Folding@Home and I plan on getting into that soon. Any more information that you can provide is greatly appreciated.

Intel is coming out with a powerful new dual core chip code-named Conroe. It annihiliates anything AMD has to offer, including what is coming on the new AM2 socket platform. If you are looking to build a system very soon, I would go with this instead of an AMD system. However, AMD will of course not sit on it's laurels and lose the X86 performance crown for long...I would give them a year until they are on top again. In the meantime, Intel will have the upper hand with Conroe.

the conroe will be a monster when it is publily released but in saying that amd are bound to have a trick up there slieve for the release as they have shifted the new AM2 release date forward and i think are going to be making a comeback very shortly

Quote: Originally Posted by THRiLL KiLL amd... reverse hyperthreading

yes yes i forgot almost yea I'm gonna stick with AMD for sure, but if you don't care, I'd wait and see what intel is gonna do for the compition, either or I'm saving for one of those nice AM2's

Hmm on the Ghz ? which no one has addressed thats Irrelevant as AMD CPUs are labeled for thier Intel counterparts a 64 4800+ means it performs on par with the Intel 4.8Ghz speed CPUs even though thats running at say 2.4Ghz it does much more work a cycle than the intel chips. SO that amd 4800+ is doing 2x the work a cycle that the Intel 4.8Ghz chip is performing.

Hmm you say conroe and i say i want real world test scores before i go and buy, i mean whats the heat on the Conroe like to AM2 in real world those are variables we need to see before we go ahead and claim "Conroe" as the superior CPU. Yeah it may perform better but if it generates more heat than some of the P4's i've worked on cooling it will be a issue and the way AMD is going with stock cooling performance at 30C load on the 64s i've seen (bear in mind at stock speed) that may be a big selling point. Besides all that junk AMD is planning on going beyond 2 cores with AM2 from what i have heard so perhaps games and such will be utilizing 4 core cpus to thier fullest potential you never know what AMD has up their sleeve. The new dual core CPUs are new and given software takes a few years to develope the games that will be coming out in a year are going to be designed to keep the dual core+ people in mind.

Lets kick back and wait for release and see true optimized drivers, and OS software for it before we get all fired up and proclaiming AM2 as the best or "Conroe" as the ultimate. Yes i am a skeptic i don't believe company hipe over thier releases i mean i've worked in the archery buisness since i was 12, every year this manufactorer states, "My new bow will be faster and quieter than anything else" well i've yet to see anything quieter stock than my bowtech Liberty, yeah i've seen faster but they all sound like a loaded shotgun going off in comparison (I traded 22FPS for zero noise, its a 308FPS bow vs my old parker 330fps bow the performance is not noticable speed wise but the noise reduction is). Anyways lets see the pros and cons to each side.

Well hey, what I want to know is, for those of us who don't have massive budgets, will Conroe be some uber elite extreme edition that costs like $1500?

Like any CPU thats new and high performance expect that 1500.00USD price tag for a few months.

hey, I've been wondering about intel v. amd...and thanks Disturbed you answered my upcoming Q. Now, I think for my future comp plans, I'm going to make it for AMD.

anyone know what the average length of time (in a exclusively 2 way competitive market) one company spends at the top of the game? I know AMD had one crazy long legacy as being the best you can get and bang for buck, but i'm sure the constant one-up-manship of the Video card industry would lower that statistic....


this is by-far, the most ambiguous and worst written post i've ever posted...feel free to ignore...

Quote: Originally Posted by disturbed_pyro Hmm on the Ghz ? which no one has addressed thats Irrelevant as AMD CPUs are labeled for thier Intel counterparts a 64 4800+ means it performs on par with the Intel 4.8Ghz speed CPUs even though thats running at say 2.4Ghz it does much more work a cycle than the intel chips. SO that amd 4800+ is doing 2x the work a cycle that the Intel 4.8Ghz chip is performing.

Don't know about the 4.8GHz intel thing

I remember that it used to be a rule of thumb with the old Athlon XP chips (i.e. AMD XP3000 was about equivalent to a P4 3.0GHz) Unsure on the Athlon 64's though.

AMD CPU's do things in a different manner to the intel ones - I won't profess to know how they do it, just that they manage do more work per clock cycle and can deliver much better RAM bandwidth than Intel can.

The AMD's are the goods for gaming at the moment though - An A64 4800+ on will smoke all but the top Intel Extreme Edition chip (helliciously pricy) in most benchmarks, and I'd gather, in real world performance too.

From what intel are feeding us all at the moment, Conroe is shaping to be able to take the crown off AMD - it uses less power, will be able to do more work per clock cycle (similar to the AMD's) and also have a higher clockspeed than the AMD's have. I'd expect it to be a great overclocker too

Mind you - early adopters will be paying a ton for it (as well as ironing out the teething problems)

I run an Intel/DDR2 rig at the moment - primarily for multimedia creation (and I hadn't tried an intel rig before )
If I was a die-hard gamer, I'd be on an AMD/DDR platform, saving for a conroe setup next year
...but that's just me

I agree with MasterP, if you want a kickass rig and don't mind waiting a while, Intels new chips are definately the way to go.

Me? Im still clinging on to my hope that AMD has got us all fooled and has a Conroe-killer planned for release in say....ooohh, 2 weeks?

We can all dream...

Quote: Originally Posted by Gzim Well hey, what I want to know is, for those of us who don't have massive budgets, will Conroe be some uber elite extreme edition that costs like $1500?

The E6700, which is a 2.67GHz chip with 4MB of cache and a 1066 front side bus will cost $529 while the E6600, a 2.40GHz version will cost $315. The other two members of the Intel Cointreau family have 2MB of cache apiece, with the E6400 (2.13GHz) costing $240, while the E6300 (1.86GHz) will cost $210. Taken from http://www.theinquirer.net so they will have a conroe for every price range. Its the only thing stoping me from building my first pc. I am waiting for the conroe to drop witch will be around late june early july from what i also read. btw this is also my first post joy

i found this about the new tech coming out & didn't know this ;

The combination of AM2 and DDR2 doesn't offer any real advantage for AMD at this point, because their processors aren't yet bottlenecked by memory bandwidth.

anyhow you can read it...
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060411-6581.html

True but there are rumors going around that Intel rigged the Conroe tests.... I saw a independant review of the Conroe and it only outperformed a AMD 939 CPU by -8%... yeah the - is there for a reason it didn't outperform it according to them. However i can't say wehre they were rigging thier tests as well...

Quote: Originally Posted by disturbed_pyro True but there are rumors going around that Intel rigged the Conroe tests.... I saw a independant review of the Conroe and it only outperformed a AMD 939 CPU by -8%... yeah the - is there for a reason it didn't outperform it according to them. However i can't say wehre they were rigging thier tests as well...

Do you have a link? I'd love to get some more tests/reviews.