corsasport.co.uk
 

Corsa Sport » Message Board » Off Day » Geek Day » P4 or AMD? » Post Reply

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Icon:
Formatting Mode:
Normal
Advanced
Help

Insert Bold text Insert Italicized text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert Email Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text
Message:
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
Post Options: Disable smileys?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email notification of new replies?

John

posted on 15th Jan 06 at 03:01

quote:
Originally posted by PK1
see john you were wrong again

ya wanker!


Thanks for the u2u mate, I think i'm a twat to:thumbs:
I don't see where I was wrong?
I'm fully aware of the differences between chips and architectures.
I'm just fed up with people posting utter rubbish in reply to questions incase people actually go and take their advice.


Ian

posted on 14th Jan 06 at 23:51

If this is a competition to be wrong can I ask that you compare your post to that which is acceptable under policy, and see how far away you are there.


PK1

posted on 14th Jan 06 at 23:32

see john you were wrong again

ya wanker!


PaulW

posted on 14th Jan 06 at 23:10

AMD can handle more insturctions per cycle, due to better architecture & pipelining than intel chips...

intel chips have a far more quicker memory bus than amd chips

AMD are a better processor for games & such, where its raw processing power & not memory bandwidth which is the key

Intel chips are better for video & sound encoding, due to the quicker memory access speeds

HOWEVER

Intel Pentium-M chips (which can be used in desktop systems) are similiar to AMD's performance stakes, where a 1.4Ghz chip is actually on par with the 3ghz P4 equivelant, BUT the memory bandwidth is also quicker than AMD's but not as quick as the original desktop P4

therefor, the Pentium-M chips are better still for gaming, IF you clock them up a bit (say to 1.8 to 2ghz from a 1.6ish ghz chip)

again... the argument for which is better can go on & on & on, but it depends what your gona do...

If its just normal word processing & gaming, go for AMD

if your doing alot of video encoding (DVD-ripping & authoring for example) then stick with Intel...


John

posted on 14th Jan 06 at 18:43

PK1 do you actually have a clue about anything.
Did you learn all this while you were studying for whatever law degree you managed to get at 18?
Thicker and bulkier chips does not mean it can be clocked lower and do more.
The only reason the die on the chip would be bigger is because AMD hadn't yet moved down to 90nm.
Do you even know what part of the chip is the actual chip.
How can AMD chips be more stable.
How do intel get away with selling chips that aren't stable.
Only problem in recent times with intel was the floating point bug which is no longer there.
Please will you go away and stop misinforming people on any subject you decide you are an expert in that day.


PK1

posted on 14th Jan 06 at 18:07

John, if you knew anything about microchip architecture then you would know AMD are in fact thicker and bulkier chips. This is how they are clocked lower yet are the same speed as a higher clocked Intel.

And yes, AMD chips are more stable.


John

posted on 14th Jan 06 at 06:44

quote:
Originally posted by PK1
AMD is much better than Intel (ready for arguments)

AMD chips are actually clocked much lower, but they are larger chips, so get 'more done' in the same amount of time.

This means less chance of crashing and more stable in general, and you will find them cheaper too


They are larger chips. wtf:boggle:
An AMD chip will be no more stable than an Intel one if both are set up properly.
They have a different architecture.
I personally like AMD because imo they offer better value for money.
Pound for pound you'll probably be better buying an AMD although i'm not sure how well either of them perform lately at the top end of the market.
Have a look and see what fits the budget, then search for reviews of them on google.


Corsa Sport Gav

posted on 14th Jan 06 at 00:12

u hav u2u


Mase

posted on 13th Jan 06 at 22:43

amd


Rus

posted on 13th Jan 06 at 22:40

intel = a ferrari
amd = monster truck

i prefer amd, there quicker.


PK1

posted on 13th Jan 06 at 22:16

AMD is much better than Intel (ready for arguments)

AMD chips are actually clocked much lower, but they are larger chips, so get 'more done' in the same amount of time.

This means less chance of crashing and more stable in general, and you will find them cheaper too


supacook2k

posted on 11th Jan 06 at 20:26

http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?rb=15057359386&action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=98783

£82.98 inc VAT


Melville

posted on 11th Jan 06 at 20:07

Yeah Ive got about £60 to spend on a motherboard budgeted in. I need a new one as Im still running on SD Ram :!

So motherboard problems aside what would you pick for a budget of £100 or less?


Adam_B

posted on 11th Jan 06 at 19:43

to swap to an AMD chip you will need to change the mother board as well, not 100% but i wouldnt have thought you could do it for £100


Melville

posted on 11th Jan 06 at 19:33

Im looking at upgrading and was wondering what everyone thought was best? Im not a serious gamer, but I do play the odd one. Just clocked half life 2 on my current 1.7ghz P4, so Im not looking at anything stupidly fast and priced. I mainly use photoshop, office, the web, encode and burn a few dvds. Ive got a budget of £100

Thanks, Mark