AMD Processors

el_gringo_3

Hi Guys.

Im currently building a new system, as ive done many times before. However, previously i've always used Intel processors, but have been offered a good deal on an AMD board and processor.

My question is, I seem to recall a few years ago if you bought an AMD processor, its speed was actually lower than the rating (so a 2.8g would actually be 2.4, or similar). Is this still the case, especially relating to their quad core range?

Is there anything else I should know that would cause me any issues or considerations?

DatabaseError

the numbers mean very little by themselves nowadays...making life...er...interesting
as someone who after many years bought nothing but amd...and who now has 3 fairly new intel builds..i'm probably not the one to answer

anyway..what have you been offered?

davetrousers

AMD chips are generally better VFM, imho.

The reason the 'clock speed' was slower than the chips 'nominal' values was that it was AMD's way of saying that this chip has a comparable speed to the Intel chip of that speed iyswim

LeeSouthEast

I sized up the pros and cons a few months back for a friend's new PC. I came to the decision that if budget is your primary concern, then AMD is better value for money. If you want performance, then shell out the few extra quids and go Intel.

mrscruffy

LeeSouthEast wrote: »

I sized up the pros and cons a few months back for a friend's new PC. I came to the decision that if budget is your primary concern, then AMD is better value for money. If you want performance, then shell out the few extra quids and go Intel.

I've just completed a self-build from bits found round the house and cheap bits of eBay. I went for an AMD 64bit dual core as they were selling for under a tenner(!).

Any reduction in performance in more than made up for with the 4GB of RAM I was able to buy with the money I saved on the processor.

buglawton

My son has an AMD based PC, it was never possible to get the variable fan speed to work, consequently it is a noisy machine.

el_gringo_3

Thanks guys, some really good replies on this thread, just what i was looking for.
:T

Database Error - the deal is the maplin one down from 250 to 190, reckon i can get a friend with a student card to get a little bit more off as well, or possibly buy a catalogue if they still have discount vouchers in! Only issue is it is a mini atx board...

My other option was to hope i could find an ebay deal on an atx intel mobo (which i would have preferred if only for an extra pci slot tbh) and a secondhand intel quadcore 2.2 @ £110 form cex. Whilst I would prefer the sizing and choice of mobo of this option, i'm looking at about the same amount before i think about heatsink and fan and memory.

Cheers guys.

thescouselander

This is an interesting subject to me. My line of work involves running complex synthetic environments for defence projects. Computing power is critical to how smoothly the simulations run.

A little while back I received a report comparing AMD and Intel Chips. There was no clear winner, AMD were ahead in some areas while Intel were ahead in others.

Interestingly the Intel chips were restricted by not being able to move data fast enough to and from the RAM. This meant, for certain applications, they maxed out before reaching 100% CPU load. The AMD chips didn't suffer from this as they access the RAM in a different way. Bare in mind this report is quite old now in computing terms so things may have moved on a bit.

Either way AMD appeared to be as good as Intel. I suggest you go for whatever you can get the best deal on.

Frozenace

Processing power is pretty much irrelevant nowdays since CPUs are so cheap and powerful anyway to do word processing and stuff.

Since Intel introduced the Core 2 series Cpus, the war's been practically going there way, with AMD fighting against Intel on the CPU and Nvidia on the Graphics front.

If you have a decent graphics card and a medium spec CPU, enough RAM, it'll last you quite a few years. (When I used to work at NVidia, the 8800gtx set me back 400 quid, now it's worth about 100 or less, although it's still serving me pretty well).

Paradigm

I've got to agree with thescouselander I don't really see any difference in AMD V Intel in real life performance. Both have an edge in certain areas but overall there's nothing to choose between the two apart from AMD chips being cheaper.

Just a quick question..AMD's were known to run hotter than Intel chips is this still the case?

Lum

thescouselander wrote: »

Interestingly the Intel chips were restricted by not being able to move data fast enough to and from the RAM. This meant, for certain applications, they maxed out before reaching 100% CPU load. The AMD chips didn't suffer from this as they access the RAM in a different way. Bare in mind this report is quite old now in computing terms so things may have moved on a bit.

The Athlon 64 has the memory controller built into the processor, wheras the Intel "Core" chips still use the more traditional design with the memory controller built into the "Northbridge" chip. The new Intel I7 chips that have replaced the Core chips now also have onboard memory controllers.

For most people the Intel Core chips have been trouncing the AMD chips for quite a while, despite this handicap.

Right now, Intel are offering the best value for money if you are trying to build a high-end system. AMD are offering the best value for money if you're trying to build a low end or budget system, and in the mid range it's pretty much even so go with whoever has a deal on at the time I guess.


OP yes it's true that AMD used a number that was higher than the actual clock speed, but this is because the clock speed isn't really the be all and end all of performance, though at the time Intel's advertising would have you believe otherwise. When AMD were doing this, Intel were selling 3.6 GHz Pentium 4's that were quite frankly crap and were outpeformed by a 2.2 GHz Athlon64 that could be had for a lower price, but Intel's marketing had many people believe that 3.6GHz == faster, so AMD started naming the chips "3800+" and the like.

If you want an analogy, it would be like taking my 2 litre Volvo 940 and expecting it to win a drag race against a 1.8 litre Mazda MX-5