| LinHES Forums http://forum.linhes.org/ |
|
| CPUs: AMD vs Intel http://forum.linhes.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8095 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Slackem [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | CPUs: AMD vs Intel |
I'm sure this has been answered but i can't search for it without pulling a million other unrelated posts. I noticed that almost NOONE is using intel. Everyone is all about AMD. Which one and y? For a little background..I was an AMD man forever but then Intel started winning me back with their 1MB and 2MB L2 cache and yeah i was a sucker for the hyperthreading too. Regardless i've been an intel man as of recently. Esp when the 2.53 GHZ Celeron D is running about $40 right now. I think i read somewhere about the Intel's running hot..is this right? Thanks in advance, KC |
|
| Author: | ryanpatterson [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I use a pentium D 3.06Ghz chip. It is massive overkill but it cost me less then $90 including shipping, this past summer. If you want a really quiet system you can't do better then a pentium M setup. |
|
| Author: | Slackem [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | All these votes |
Yeah Intel is gettin cheap man...The AMD Sempron which is same as the celeron basically is kinda expensive for havin 128/256K cache. Almost twice as much. I'm gonna need a really convincing argument to go back to AMD. Y do you consider 3.06 ghz overkill? I figured at the least the system boots faster/loads channel guide quicker. All these AMD votes....can someone tell me please Y they are choosing AMD. Is it just a personal preference?..is the linux community more AMD based?...Is intel not cool anymore?...sheeyit fools let me know whats up |
|
| Author: | mad_paddler [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Basically i use amd because of the heat/performance/price factor, The a64 3500 in my desktop (overclocked to 2.4ghz) runs under 35c idle and under 40c fully loaded. |
|
| Author: | Slackem [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Great |
Thank you mad_paddler. A nice simple explanation. I was beginning to worry about getting an intel since everybodys signature says AMD <fill_in_the_blank>. I'm not worried too much about heat cause quiet box isnt my concern just yet. As for the price i haven't found any better deals than $40 for the Athlon 64's...maybe if they go down I will move back 
|
|
| Author: | Xsecrets [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 5:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
well I think we've just gotten used to using AMD, because for the last several years the price/perf ratio was ridiculously in their favor. And it still is if you compare PIV to A64, though not as far as it used to be. Many people like myself got a REALLY bad taste in their mouth from the first celery chips and will never use one, and that's the price comparison you are making. And of course in the A64 PIV arena the A64 runs much cooler. That said my main box has a PIV 3.0 in it (was as cheap as possible free) and runs great, though I did have to replace the factory intel fan which was louder than my vaccum cleaner literally. |
|
| Author: | WantPvr [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I haven't bought a chip in almost 1 year and at that time I could still get a good Athlon XP for under $100. Now it seems Athlon s pushing the 64 bit chips, and boy are they expensive. I can't find a lot of good cheap Athlons anymore. By good I mean, less power and heat and great performance. I think Intel "woke up" and started charging a bit less, but the P4's still use a lot of pwer (which equals heat). |
|
| Author: | Liv2Cod [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm a total AMD enthusiast. Of the eight computers in my house, five are AMD -- the others are two laptops and my Myth box. Why did I choose Intel P4 for Myth? Because when decoding MPEG2-TS video streams for HDTV, clock speed is still king. And Intel clocks their chips faster than AMD. So, where an Intel 3GHz P4 can decode 1080i without even breathing hard, my AthlonXP 3000 couldn't even manage it without major skipping and jumping. THe AMD64 has improved things in some ways, but has not matched the Intel P4 at decoding MPEG2 streams, at least from the tests I've seen. So, for all things but Myth, I use AMD. But for watching HDTV I use Intel. |
|
| Author: | tjc [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'd have to go with the heat/price/performance angle too. The AMD64 chip in my KnoppMyth box was cheaper than the Intel P4 in my workstation, runs cooler, and has the same or a bit better performance. The KnoppMyth box is also much quieter, even though I tried to minimize noise when putting together the workstation. |
|
| Author: | khrusher [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have intel. The 'extra' PC I has laying aroung was intel. |
|
| Author: | ryanpatterson [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: All these votes |
Slackem wrote: Y do you consider 3.06 ghz overkill? I figured at the least the system boots faster/loads channel guide quicker.
I use hauppauge cards for both encoding and decoding. With my box recording three different shows, playing a recorded show, and me playing a show out of /myth/pretty over the network the cpu ussage hardly rises out of idle. |
|
| Author: | Slackem [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | whoa |
Whoa...thats pretty serious. I made the HUGE mistake of getting the HP 401 that does software encoding / decoding with AMD 1.0 ghz. I didnt realize the CPU load drops thaty much when using the Hardware mpeg tv cards. My new Hardware tv Card gets here today and my new CPU gets here on monday so I can't wait to really get things rollin. I had forgotten how resource friendly Linux was. |
|
| Author: | lynchaj [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Liv2Cod wrote: I'm a total AMD enthusiast. Of the eight computers in my house, five are AMD -- the others are two laptops and my Myth box.
Why did I choose Intel P4 for Myth? Because when decoding MPEG2-TS video streams for HDTV, clock speed is still king. And Intel clocks their chips faster than AMD. So, where an Intel 3GHz P4 can decode 1080i without even breathing hard, my AthlonXP 3000 couldn't even manage it without major skipping and jumping. THe AMD64 has improved things in some ways, but has not matched the Intel P4 at decoding MPEG2 streams, at least from the tests I've seen. So, for all things but Myth, I use AMD. But for watching HDTV I use Intel. I agree with Liv2Cod's opinion on the subject. Some things are still beyond all but the highest performing processors (H.264 HDTV 1080P in other words ... the HD Serenity Trailer). Maybe the high end dual core processors could pull it off but I know my 3.2 GHz P4 Prescott (800 MHz FSB) can't do it. Intel's biggest drawback is their obscene power requirements and heat generating problems. They make great space heaters though ... 
Andrew Lynch |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|