Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
AMD or P4
fardorin
Member Posts: 7
I just have to know, AMD 64s or.... Pentium 4s, because so far AMDs haved served me better for gaming then P4s have
Comments
As a person who builds computers and has used computers for years and years, AMD all the way, not only are they cheaper and better but they just what ever gamer should have.. I currently built myself a AMD 64 3200+ with 1gig of ram and a 7800GT *soon to be 2x 7800GT in SLI* and this system is one of the best ive had.. its awesome.. go for AMD
_______________________
I agree go with AMD. They look like they are worse cause they are only 2.2 ghz or 2.4 ghz while pentium 4 like 3.5 ghz. The real difference comes in how the chips work. Just look at benchmarks. Also you can always overclock an AMD easier then a P4. The main draw for me is how much power each one uses. P4 always at top specs meaning it eats power doing nothing, and generates heat. AMD only uses what it needs to use. There is also alot of technical jargon that I don't really understand.
Personally I like the dual/quad processor Opteron boards, but I use high-end 3d programs so more of a workstation setup is more useful (and typically a workstation can easily handle a game). Also I have looked at many benchmarks that pit the AMD opteron verse the Intel Xeon, and the Opteron usually comes out better.
Also on video cards. You shouldn't really need an SLI setup. 1 video card is plenty enough to play any game. The real power of video cards with gaming is what shaders they support. Generally anything made in the last year, year and a half can run any game on full view clipping. This is because not many game levels even pass 1 million polies. Anything made in the last year, year and a half can support like 1.3 billion polies; more than enough. Also only the more rescent games have textures larger then 1024x1024, in which case they tile a ton; which means they won't hold as much video memory. SLI setup is highly useful in modeling though. Especially when your making a movie animation, cause those can easily get into the billions of polies, and hundreds of thousands of high res textures.
I hope I helped.
AMD for games, P4 for video editing, since you want to game, go for AMD imo
. Got myself an AMD 64 Venice 3500+, runs smoothly I must say 
. It's just better bang for your buck.
AMD is much better for a gaming computer, and the p4 is excellent for video applications.
You just to have to remember that the AMDs produce a lot more heat and if that is a consideration, you might want to get a p4.
AMD vs P4
Not the newest video but a excellent demo on cooling issues.
O.O AMD causes more heat? AMD pretty much creates more heat only if you overclock it. The fact it only uses what it needs creates less heat. P4 is always active meaning its always creating heat.
p4 pretty useless for video editing. Adobe Premier and Afteraffects don't require a huge amount of processing power. With 3d applications, the ram and vid card are the most important elements. Also multi-processor superior to single processor p4. In the multi-processor field AMD far above Intel. Everyone I have asked that has used both Opteron and Xeon agree Opteron simply performs better.
06.01.09
Would have thought a hardware question belonged in the 'off topic' forum
But to the question, seems Intel is shifting its efforts to the laptop/notebooks where low power draw, and not necessarily high core speed (2GHz) is expected, considering how it's OCed prescots were melting inserts on mobo (motherboards.)
In contrast AMD going to dual core in an expensive range of core speeds is just what desktop gamers dream about, now if only the games could actually use that second or other three cores! Big next thing is if the memory controller in the AMD cpu will utalize DDR2 or even DDR3 instead of DDR1 and there will be that +1GHz fsb (Front Side Bus) Intel uses (or is it actually a scam 256MHz fsb X 4.)
The bigest concern for gaming is the gpu (Graphics Processing Unit.) Long gone are the $200 to $300 (at the time year 2000) high end 32 & 64MB gpu that did 10 and 20 million triangles per second (eg 500 to 800 Mtexels [all those DX6 eye candy graphics.])
Reference
Modern gpu are doing 13,200 Mtexels/sec (GF7800gtx 512MB. $500ish) And people are starting to have to shift from tv type CRT to thin display LCD type monitors, in fact some mfgr have stoped making CRT.
A new thing will be High Definition (720p [1280x720 resolution,] 1080i [1920x1080,] dvd [720x480]) television. Bet many people refuse to believe tvs were black and white with dial channel selectors you had to get up go over to and by hand change channels !! And most cities only has 3 or 4 tv channels with programing !!! Now with vhs tape recorders being phased out single and dual layer DVD will have to battle it out for which can actually record the upcoming HDTV content and computer/gaming users will have to decide on a specialized gaming desktop or a media center that not only playes games, but also can play/record HD from cable and satellite radio content. Seems a quiet gpu that can process hdtv is not the kind of gpu (200 to 400 watt) that will do +13Gtps & +40GBps display effects or even connected pair of gpu.
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
Actually the dual core AMDs usually perform better in everything included video editing that the P4 dual cores. Single core though you are absolutely correct on that.
P4 create way more heat that AMD's do though.
member of imminst.org
AMD all the way.
P4's are NOTORIOUS for heat. The first batch the rolled off the assembly lines were mostly critically flawed in the heat department (so much eat was produced on certain spots it fried the chip). AMD has NEVER had that problem.
Haha! I think everyone knows its gotta be AMD.
And here I came expecting at least one newbie to say Intel is better.
AMD hands down. Intel themselves have indicated they expect it to be at least 2007 or later before they catch up to AMDs 64 bit dual-cores.
AMD 64 FTW
A Work in Progress.
Add Me
IF you plan to use your computer for hours and hours non-stop, and plan to keep it for years and years, (2 years or more.... 5 years or more... 8 years or more!) AMD is far superior to Pentium. AMD takes longer to overheat, takes longer to malfunction after it starts over heating, and has a better track record than Pentium.
AMD is less stable then the Intel chips. I know my dad cant use AMD chips while Music editing. I only use AMD chips because of the price but I have also found them less stable im not a huge fan. I moved over to the Pentium D and have never had a problem since. Its all based on personal experience I dont follow the charts as I find them to be wrong most of the time. I have built and repaired alot of comps and the Intel is what gives me the least amount of grief.
I love the new Dual core chips easy to install (ZIF) and very stable. Its what ive gone to now and I would never go back
Maybe you dont have the proper settings on the bios. Stability is not an issue with AMD and that is simply untrue. Current AMD are every bit if more stable than Intel chips.
Im not biased, ive owned intel and AMD chips, they both have highs and lows in the product line during the years. Just at this moment AMD holds the performance crown.
lol no dude alot of software I have used says this Software was developed for use in Intell Chips, and Im not talking about games There isnt much of a diffrence. The software for creating music or videos is simply Unstable on AMD Ask anyone who does it alot. Although really if your doing Vidio editing you better off going to Mac
AMD pwns P4
-Adam