Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mr ChriZ]

I was just wondering if anyone here
has tried running similar spec machines
one with Intel and one with AMD
to see how they compare when running
MC with a fairly large database say >15,000 tracks.
Not talking top of the line 64 bit dual cores here just
say a PIV 2.4ghz vs Athlon 2400
or something like that?

I know generally AMD wins the game category
and in general experience I've found in
every day use Intel certainly in the last
generation were much quicker for general
office / development work with than AMD...
Cheers
Chris

[LonWar]

For anything non game related I would difinately go with a Intel. I have a 3400+ at home and a Intel 2.8ghz at work, and I would prefer the Intel. It seems to run everything else quicker. I am not all that impressed with the AMD machine.

If you are not building a computer then there are alot more Intel options.



But then again, this is just my opinion.

[glynor]

I feel exactly the opposite.  Back in the old Athlon XP days when you were comparing to the first-generation Pentium 4's that may have been true (office productivity = intel, games = AMD) but that hasn't been true for at least a year and a half.  Not counting the brand-new and barely-available Core Duo, nothing Intel has out right now can hold a candle to even the low-end Athlons.

Plus, if you are concerned about upgradability at all, then the AMDs are definitely the way to go.  Intel changes chipset requirements for just about every new processor that comes out, which means that you'll need a new motherboard (and sometimes new RAM) in addition to that shiny new processor.

Right now I have a $150 Athlon64 3200+ which performs at least as well as a $180 2.8GHz/800MHz Prescott.  However, with absolute ease, I overclocked my little 3200+ from it's stock speed of 2.0GHz to 2.5GHz (I was being conservative, I could have fiddled with it and probably gotten 2.6-2.7), which is roughly the speed of their high-end Athlon 64 FX-55 processor ($811.00).  Once you overclock them, nothing can touch them for the money.  The beauty of it is that I'm still using the same video card and same ram as I was when I had a Athlon XP 1.2GHz processor.  If I want to drop some cash and throw a dual-core X2 4800+ I can do it, with my existing board, ram, video card, etc.  Try doing that with an Intel board...

Check the benchmarks and this pricing guide for more information (and here is a huge list of reviews of AMD's new FX-60 which usually include older processor benches too). Make sure when you're looking at the benchmarks you compare pricing too.  When a $800 processor you can never afford barely ties a $300 one you can, then which one really wins?

The one thing I do agree with Gamer on is that if you aren't building it yourself (why wouldn't you?) there are more options with Intel.  That's not going to last though.  Honestly, if I were going to get an Intel system (which obviously I wouldn't), I would certainly wait for the new Core Duo systems to show up in force.  Finally they're abandoning the Netbust Netburst architecture and are beginning to be competitive again.

[Mr ChriZ]

Cheers for your opinons.
It's gonna be a while before I've
got any spending power for this thing anyhow.
By which time some things might have come down in price a bit 

[KingSparta]

I Too Have been looking, but i beleave if this thing does not blow up anytime soon i will be waiting for the new version of windows that should be out this year (if the release date has not changed).

[glynor]

Nope, Vista's release schedule hasn't changed (again) yet.  It's still looking like it will be released to OEMs this summer, with general public availability around October 2006.

In case you're worried about getting a PC that can support all the new "Aero" UI goodies, it looks like and current DirectX9 compatible card with at least 64MB of onboard RAM (not counting the shared system ram trickery on the real low end cards) should cover it.  Basically, an ATI x800-class/x1600-class, or a nVidia 6600-class/6800-class, or better would do the trick.

[KingSparta]

not counting the shared system ram trickery on the real low end cards

I did that once, my wife now uses it for her computer.

1.8ghz intel video on the motherboard with shared memory

never again.

You can not play Unreal tournament or doom on it and expect to live long

More like 256meg (or more) on a ATI Or nVidia Card is the only way to go, ATI is normaly my pick

[glynor]

Same here.  I love my x800 XL and All In Wonder x800 XT cards, though I may have to replace the x800 XL with a less powerful x1600XT here shortly, as one of my motherboards appears to be failing and I may have to step up to a PCI-Express card to find a replacement motherboard.

All in all nVidia makes some nice stuff (I have a bunch of motherboards with their chipsets), but I just like the ATI driver system better, the image quality tends to be better (though that depends on the eye of the beholder for sure).  Mainly though, I've had ATI since the Rage128 (and I was one of the first people to buy the original Radeon 64MB AGP cards when they came out), and I'm used to it.