PDA

View Full Version : Intel vs. AMD



Charles Kozierok
08-27-2000, 09:50 AM
OK, new topic. I must admit that the previous one wasn't very interesting. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif
What are your thoughts on Intel vs. AMD systems? Not looking for cheerleading here, just your experiences and preferences, and why. Have you used a non-Intel system before? How did it compare to the Intel systems you have used?
Personally, I have always been in the "keep it simple" camp, which usually meant Intel systems. However, I wanted to give an AMD system a whirl, so recently set up a system (well, upgraded, but the whole system core was replaced) based on an AMD K6-III 400. After losing many weeks and much hair to what turned out to be a bad motherboard, the system has worked pretty well. I would definitely consider an AMD system again in the future.
Thoughts?

------------------
Charles M. Kozierok ( ixlubb@PCGuide.com )
Webslave, The PC Guide (http://www.PCGuide.com)
Comprehensive PC Reference, Troubleshooting, Optimization and Buyer's Guides...

Rossgr
08-27-2000, 05:13 PM
I have built systems around Cyrix, AMD, and Intel chips. All worked fine for me. I have never had problems due to CPU incompatibilites so really cannot express a preferance. I generly choose a CPU based on avilability and price, not brand name.

shadowmonkx
08-27-2000, 05:37 PM
Charles,

I've never used anything other than Intel Systems before, and I intend to stay that way.

I have numerous reasons as to why I made this decision:

1.) More support for Intel products (mother/mainboards, components, Operating System features...)

2.) There are more products for Intel processors than there are for AMD. For example, it is extremely hard to find a great motherboard for AMD -- one comparable to top-of-the-line i815 or i840 chipsets. A 200MHz AMD system bus is nothing when you consider other factors.

3.) Intel products are typically significantly more well-made, have a better warranty, and offer more features than do AMD products; even Athlon. For example, the P-III has many, many more supported CPU operations than does the Atholon processor.

4.) I don't overclock, and doing so voids your warranty. So what if you can run a 700MHz Athlon at 1GHz stably? If you don't overclock right (supercool the processor, etc.), you're screwed. And if the processor craps out on you, you're in even more deep doodoo -- NO WARRANTY!!

5.) It used to be the case that Intel products were a lot more expensive than AMD. With the boon of the Athlon processor, the prices vary so little as to be inconsequential. Moreover, if you consider all the other products you have to buy if you switch from Intel to AMD, it's gonna end up costing you more! There's a the microprocessor itself, new motherboard, replacement of unsupported components/peripherals, etc.

6.) I've heard reports that Athlons "were not" fully compatible with Microsoft's DirectX technology. I can't vouch for its present situation...

7.) Too few people do REAL research before buying products, they more often than not work merely on hearsay. Well, take a look at the specs of an Intel processor as compared to Athlon, and you'll see that Intel wins out, hands down. Of course Athlon WILL win in some benchmarks, but it's all dependant upon the system running it...

Well, that just about does it. Comments appreciated.

Hope this helps,

-shadowmonkx

P.S.- I typically base my purchases on specifications and reviews. Buying based on cost and availability isn't a great idea when you want the best damn system money can buy. Heck, mine's worth around $5,800 if everything was bought at retail when it call came out. This includes all components and external devices: such speakers, scanner, monitor, keyboard, etc.

[This message has been edited by shadowmonkx (edited 08-27-2000).]

Charles Kozierok
08-27-2000, 07:47 PM
Thanks for the replies, guys. You both make very good points.
For me, actually, the issue isn't the CPU itself, it's the chipset. I am quite confident that AMD can make a good product (shadowmonkx, have you ever encountered real quality problems with AMD products?) but the main issue is the chipset support. I like getting the chipset and CPU from the same company.
I, like many others, think that to some extent AMD shot itself in the foot by not going into the chipset business; VIA is now starting to make a name for itself, but it's not what Intel's name is, and the other companies making chipsets for AMD CPUs are no-names to those outside the industry.
I am very thankful that AMD has created competition within this industry though, or we'd all probably be 2 or 3 generations behind. And I don't like the backroom deal Intel made that results in them trying to force-feed us an inferior, over-priced technology.

Rossgr
08-27-2000, 07:49 PM
Must be nice to be in the money doesn't matter postion. Most of us live in a different world. Why is the warrnenty so importent money doesn't mattter, right? Money matters a lot to me. I have had no problems finding mobos for non intel chips, all other hardware is the same. My old CyrixPr200 chip (no longer in service) was dirt cheap considering the comparable Intel chips of the day. I personaly am very glad that there are alternatives to Intel and am hoping that Linux will become a competive OS for M$. I am concerned that we seem to be "putting all of our eggs in one basket" so to speak. Nothing like competition for a healthy market place. I hope to build an Athlon system next, perhaps next summer, when prices are down another step or two!

Rossgr
08-27-2000, 07:52 PM
Must be nice to be in the money doesn't matter postion. Most of us live in a different world. Why is the warrnenty so importent money doesn't mattter, right? Money matters a lot to me. I have had no problems finding mobos for non intel chips, all other hardware is the same. My old CyrixPr200 chip (no longer in service) was dirt cheap considering the comparable Intel chips of the day. I personaly am very glad that there are alternatives to Intel and am hoping that Linux will become a competive OS for M$. I am concerned that we seem to be "putting all of our eggs in one basket" so to speak. Nothing like competition for a healthy market place. I hope to build an Athlon system next, perhaps next summer, when prices are down another step or two!

Charles Kozierok
08-27-2000, 08:04 PM
Hey Ross,
I wish AMD and Intel had kept to the same platforms, so we could really see which was better. I still reminisce thinking about the "good old days" of Socket 7, when the two went head to head. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif
Do you really think Linux will "make it big"? I know it's popular amongst enthusiasts, but it's hard to see it becoming popular for use by "Average Joe and Jane".

------------------
Charles M. Kozierok ( ixlubb@PCGuide.com )
Webslave, The PC Guide (http://www.PCGuide.com)
Comprehensive PC Reference, Troubleshooting, Optimization and Buyer's Guides...

Son of Zeus
08-27-2000, 08:16 PM
shadowmonkx,
I will, as they say in Australian cricket jargon, "let that one go thru to the keeper".

I too own an Intel system. Cost me $300 Australian, or about 10 cents US. Okay actually a little bit more-but nowadays not that much more. It is an i486DX4-S/100MHz machine.

A little primitive I know. But after upgrading to 32MB FPM RAM & installing two larger, faster Seagate hard drives I still manage to run the following software:
 Windows 98 Second Edition (Build 4.10.2222 A);
 Internet Explorer v.5.5 & Internet Tools;
 Office 97 (SR2B) Professional Edition;
 Norton 2000 Anti-Virus;
 PartitionMagic v.5.01 (Build 195);
 Adobe Acrobat v.4.05c;
 Sharp ZQ-700 Electronic Organiser Connectivity Software.

Nevertheless, my next system will be build around the latest AMD Athlon “Thunderbird” or Duron processors as I believe that they are now as good, if not better, than their current Intel Pentium III or Celeron equivalents.

By buying AMD I believe that I am also supporting competition & hopefully adding a little bit more pressure on Intel to keep them on their toes.

Chow for Now...Son of Zeus.

jollyp
08-27-2000, 11:19 PM
I couldn't find any compatible motherboard for my AMD K6-2 processor.

Rossgr
08-28-2000, 12:52 AM
IXL: Yes linux has some issues. I am not running a linux system, yet, I have read repeatly about the difficulties of installaiton and the lack of software and hardware support. Hopfully time will cure these issues.

Jollyp:
Any super 7 mobo will do the job. Go to pricewatch and search for super 7 or go to the AMD web page and check out the list of AMD recomended ones. I just bought a FIC 503+ for $65. At Frys. The second one works like a champ, (Frys, the price brings you in the quality brings you back!)

Charles Kozierok
08-28-2000, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by jollyp:
I couldn't find any compatible motherboard for my AMD K6-2 processor.

As Ross suggested, you should not have a hard time finding a motherboard to run a K6-2, because it works in many, many boards. Check the AMD site for starters. Good luck.

------------------
Charles M. Kozierok ( ixlubb@PCGuide.com )
Webslave, The PC Guide (http://www.PCGuide.com)
Comprehensive PC Reference, Troubleshooting, Optimization and Buyer's Guides...

Paul Reid
08-28-2000, 04:56 PM
What are your thoughts on Intel vs. AMD systems?

I've been using AMD and Intel since the early 1980s. AMD has always made fine Intel clones; in fact about half the 8088 IBM PCs came with AMD CPUs. Intel could not keep up with demand, so were forced to let AMD in on the racket.

Historicly, AMD lagged behind Intel. AMD took the 386 and 486 to new heights and low prices as Intel rushed to 486 and Pentium. For people not obsessed with getting the latest number, the AMDs were often excellent machines.

They are still doing it. I have an old Abit IT5H mobo next to me, rated to support up to 166 MHz. I'm running an AMD K6-2/350 in it, and pushed to 400 MHz. Intel would much rather that I abandon this old mobo and buy some new chipset from them; if Intel would make another chipset like the HX and quit screwing around with sockets I might.

I've never had a compatability problem with AMD CPUs. Cyrix used to be the third player: a few times I've seen odd things from my Cyrixes. BeOS refused to boot on one; a virus checker noted the odd timing on the Cyrix (this was mentioned in the virus checker's docs), SETI@home has to use a "non-Intel" client on the Cyrix (mainly because they call CPUID with a bad parameter). But I run NT Server on all three brands without any issues.

As someone upthread notes: these days you have to look for a good chipset first. I've seen wide ranges of effective speed on different chipsets. The BX seems to be today's king, and that only supports Intel CPUs. The VIA seems good for AMD, but long ago I got a bad VIA mobo and I'm sour on them.

-PRR

Charles Kozierok
08-28-2000, 09:14 PM
Hi Paul, thanks for joining in!
Yes, I think the chipset issue is key. If AMD and VIA can make things work well over the next year or so, they could really pull even with Intel or even surpass them...

------------------
Charles M. Kozierok ( ixlubb@PCGuide.com )
Webslave, The PC Guide (http://www.PCGuide.com)
Comprehensive PC Reference, Troubleshooting, Optimization and Buyer's Guides...

shadowmonkx
08-28-2000, 10:04 PM
Ixl: I've never used anything other than Intel chipsets and CPUs, primarily for the aforementioned reasons (in my previous post).

I've nothing against them, but I wasn't babbling on when I wrote what I did in my post -- I stand by my original beliefs.

As for the chipsets, the majority of the good ones are made by Intel. I currently have an i840 chipset, which is considered top of the line for Intel chipsets. The only thing potentially better is the new Solano chipset (i815).

It'd be interesting to see if AMD-oriented chipset manufacturers manage to top Intel in this area...

Rossgr: Money *does* matter, but not when you're trying to get the best you can afford. Instead of buying a new PC, I recently (past month) spent $2,300 upgrading it. New motherboard ($560), memory ($330), hard drive ($1,022), scanner ($330). I don't much like integrated PCs, you can't upgrade them... which is why I've never gotten one! http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/frown.gif

SOZ: Interesting... however, consider this: 64-bit Intel Itanium processors will soon be hitting the market, as will Pentium IV... I can't hand out any release dates or whatnot, as I have no clue. Best to check with the Intel site or ask Intel.

Best Wishes,

-shadowmonkx

Rossgr
08-29-2000, 02:40 AM
Shadowmonkx: We live in different worlds. The numbers you posted there are astronomical in my world. $2300 to upgrade! Wow, must be nice. Why would you spend 1K on a hard drive? Last summer I had $1300 to spend on my new system, I thought I was in heaven, that is the most I have spent on a system since my AppleII+ ($2000) in 1980. my last upgrade was a mobo for $65 (Fic 503+) and $90 for a retail AMD K62/450 , And I spend more then I should have. With 4 computer users in the house we need quanity.

Getenby
08-29-2000, 10:40 PM
First let me say your site has helped me out a great deal over the last couple of years . I was happy to see your post on hardware.pc-homebuilt newsgroup today , which lead me here . It's always great to read and sometimes join in these forums .
From the little bit of time I've been building systems , I've always used Intel . Until last week , I built one using a K6-2 350 Mhz on a FIC 503+ MB . The hardest part was loading the 4 in 1 drivers for the board . But really it runs great , and fast .
Again thanks alot for posting it on the newsgroup Charles , I may not post alot or often but I will read it everyday .
Pete T.

Charles Kozierok
08-30-2000, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Getenby:
First let me say your site has helped me out a great deal over the last couple of years . I was happy to see your post on hardware.pc-homebuilt newsgroup today , which lead me here . It's always great to read and sometimes join in these forums .

Thanks very much Getenby! And welcome to the forums. The more the merrier, and I'm glad you're here.


From the little bit of time I've been building systems , I've always used Intel . Until last week , I built one using a K6-2 350 Mhz on a FIC 503+ MB . The hardest part was loading the 4 in 1 drivers for the board . But really it runs great , and fast .

I found that part very confusing as well. In fact, the 503+ is the motherboard I first tried to get working in my desktop system; it turned out to be bad. There are too many "special drivers" needed for the non-Intel systems I think. It scares people off sometimes. Glad it is working well for you.


Again thanks alot for posting it on the newsgroup Charles , I may not post alot or often but I will read it everyday .
[/b]
I'm much obliged. Jump in whenever you feel like it!

------------------
Charles M. Kozierok ( ixlubb@PCGuide.com )
Webslave, The PC Guide (http://www.PCGuide.com)
Comprehensive PC Reference, Troubleshooting, Optimization and Buyer's Guides...

[This message has been edited by ixl (edited 08-30-2000).]

Samantha
09-01-2000, 10:43 PM
The system I'm currently configuring to buy will be an AMD Thunderbird, my first AMD. I, too, base my decisions on the specifications and reviews and it looks mighty good to me.

AMD did, indeed, have a problem with platforms for the Athlon and lack of chipset support. But, the chipset developers and motherboard makers appear to have overcome their initial reluctance to upset Intel. With every major PC maker, except Dell, now using AMD processors, I don't think chipset development will be the problem it was for awhile.

Intel hasn't particularly distinguished itself with its chipsets, particularly lately. They seem to go through several iterations before hitting on a real winner. So, it doesn't bother me that AMD doesn't produce its own chipsets, so long as a quality chipset is produced by someone.

------------------
S~~

[This message has been edited by Samantha (edited 09-01-2000).]

Charles Kozierok
09-03-2000, 09:39 AM
In many ways, AMD has the same sort of problem that a new college graduate has: he or she goes looking for a job to get experience, and the first thing asked is "do you have any experience"?
Many people don't want to give AMD a shot because they are "new" (not really) but mostly because they "aren't Intel".
I do think that making one's own chipsets yields benefits. After all, Intel only entered that market because they felt they had to. I don't think they really want to make chipsets. But they know it gives them control over the way the whole PC works.
The Rambus debacle aside, Intel chipsets have always been "the standard". I really, really hope AMD/VIA can pull even in this: everyone will benefit as a result (well, except for Intel. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif )

------------------
Charles M. Kozierok ( ixlubb@PCGuide.com )
Webslave, The PC Guide (http://www.PCGuide.com)
Comprehensive PC Reference, Troubleshooting, Optimization and Buyer's Guides...

MOB
09-03-2000, 10:59 PM
In my humble opinion, I think AMD will always be a thorn in Intel's
foot, and having another major player in the micro-CPU industry will be good for all of the right reasons! I have always used Intel processors since I first got involved with PC's back in 1985 starting with the 8086, 8088, 80286, and 80386. I've either owned or worked with nearly every Intel PC proc. since then up to now, except for the Xeons. I've liked them all and have no real complaint at all with Intel. I've just recently (past 2 or 3 years) decided I wanted to expand my experience and knowledge base by getting involved with something different than Intel, so, AMD seemed like the obvious choice. :-) My first experience was with a Packard Bell my cousin had using an AMD K6-2 333MHz proc. I thought at the time (over two years ago) it had pretty impressive performance for a low priced
entry level PC. My wife wanted a computer a few months back and since I
build systems for customers as part of my business, I decided to go with
AMD and use the K6-2 500MHz chip. I harnessed it to a Gigabyte GA-5AX
motherboard (w/ALi Aladdin V chipset, super socket 7 w/100MHz bus), added 128 MB of PC100 SDRAM, a 10.2 GB Western Digital HD (7200 rpm), 48x CD-ROM, 100 MB ZIP drive, a 3DFX Voodoo3 2000 video card, NIC card, Creative Labs soundblaster PCI128 sound card with Altec Lansing speakers and subwoofer. I liked it so much and after tweaking the Award BIOS some (e.g., enable CAS2 memory strobe setting, etc.), I decided to build an AMD based system for myself.

I choose the 900 MHz Athlon Thunderbird for I wanted the integrated L2 cache which the original Athlon lacked and also, and probably most importantly to me, the socket 462 (socket A) configuration. I didn't want the slot A version for I felt it took up too much room on the motherboard and I knew that it would eventually be phased out in favor of the socket A. I didn't want to mess with slotket adapters and all of that mess either if I later wanted to convert from an Athlon slot A to an Athlon (Thunderbird) socket A! I then chose the MSI K7T Pro motherboard (w/VIA KT-133 chipset) , added 128 MB of PC133 memory, 3DFX Voodoo3 3000 video card (had it laying around), 20.5 Western Digital 7200 RPM drive, 48x CD-ROM, 100MB ZIP drive, a NIC card, a 56K modem, and a Creative Labs soundblaster PCI512 sound card with Altec Lansing speakers and subwoofer. I installed all of this in a full size tower with a 350 watt power supply and several cooling fans fore and aft (the T-bird really runs hot with its some 33 million transitors). The final verdict is, I like it - like it very much!
I do agree, there are extremely few motherboards to choose from right now,
but as more chipset manufacturers jump on the AMD wagon, it want be long before there are more and better chipsets out there for the Athlon.
I didn't go with AMD's 751 chipset for I read too many negatives concerning it and I didn't want to wait for their new 761 chipset which I understand will be pretty nice.

I didn't make my decisions lightly, I did exhaustive research via the Internet on many tech-related web sites, read exhaustive reviews, checked
many, many different types of benchmark results and then made my decision.
Where one processor was slightly lacking in one area, it would slightly edge out the other one in another area. Neither processor, PIII or
Athlon is really dominant overall. Whether you're looking at business apps
or 3D games they both do respectable jobs, even though there are differences, in the real world MOST people would be hard pressed to really
see any significant dominance in one or the other. There are other variables besides processor speeds and cache size, especially with gaming.
A top of the line video card with the GEForce 256 and large amount of onboard RAM (32 or 64 MB for texturing) will do more for your gaming experience than either a PIII or Athlon running at or near GHz speeds.
It basically came down to the point that all and all, Intel and AMD are running neck-to-neck and with the MHz wars going on, the consumer is
the ultimate winner. Intel and AMD are feeding off of each other and the
technology is both becoming more affordable and better - competition is wonderful (too bad there's no counterpart in Microsoft's world)! A good example is when I purchased my Thunderbird 900 it cost $456, shortly after (a little over a month on August 15th), the price fell too under $300 and down around $270. Should have waited, but just couldn't control myself! :-) I really wanted the 1 GHz T-bird (for ego stroking purposes), but wasn't prepared to pay around $850 for it at the time. Now it's down around $470! I know, should have WAITED!!! Today, I can get the 1GHz for what I paid for the 900 a little over a month ago! Should have waited!!!
Now the P4 is coming, both Intel and AMD have or are in the process of releasing the 1.13 GHz model and 1.1 GHz respectively, the 1.3 G's, 1.4 G's are soon coming, 64 bit processing is around the corner via the Intel Itanium (also known as Merced), next year sometime, AMD is going to be introducing their Sledgehammer processor with an ultimate 2GHz core speed, and it will go on and on and... HOW MUCH FURTHER CAN IT GO WITH PRESENT TECHNOLOGY??? But with Intel's delays of new chipsets like the 820 and shortages of promised new processors, the problem and subsequent recall of their 1.13 GHz proc. and the RAMBUS DRAM fiasco, AMD has turned the tables on the once mighty and invincible processor king - all less than a year!
At least for now, AMD delivers what they a ready and capable of doing while Intel appears to be breaking somewhat under the stress!

Since I am involved with the SETI@Home project, there have been many battles over which processor/chipset has the advantage (as far as speed and shortest time to complete a work unit is concerned). Of course, the
chipset (as Charles has mentioned several times) is the key, and hands down, the Intel BX chipset is undeniably the fastest as the statistics
prove out time and time again with this highly memory/processor intensive application. Although the BX is over two years old, for now, it's the best as far as performance is concerned - at least until the i820 is in full gear!

Overall, although processor speed isn't everything, especially in everyday, real world applications and even though Intel appears to be having a tough row to hoe at the present, I chose AMD basically because they were the David to Intel's Goliath, AMD was new to me and uncharted waters (I like
change and adventure with a dash of possible danger ;-) ), a chance to grow and learn more, and simply put, sometimes I like the underdog!!!

Sorry for the novelette - I get carried away sometimes!

Best to all -
Mal

Son of Zeus
09-04-2000, 12:05 AM
MOB,

ooley dooley. Ride em cowboy. What a post!!! Must say that I enjoy a good read. And that was one. You raised a few points I would like to expand on.

"I think AMD will always be a thorn in Intel's foot, and having another major player in the micro-CPU industry will be good for all of the right reasons!"

Yep, nothing like competition to bring out the best in the Capitalistic, market driven, way of running a country. And there is no doubt that America is the home of Capitalism. But for my money whilst a Duopoly is inherently better than a Monopoly, all "opolies" need to be eliminated if we are to see the real power of market forces unleashed & set to work on planet earth.

In other words I would love to see a few more CPU production players in the PC compatible market. With the amount of money in CPUs worldwide it surprises me that others haven't arisen already. Hopefully Cyrix will get their act together & as PC sales continue to grow other players will emerge as well.

Personally I would love to see between 5-10 major CPU producers in the not too distant future. This would mean that they would each have a market share of between 10-20%. No more. No less. Although the huge investments, technical expertise & slow return on investment required in making a modern CPU means that realistically we may never see more than 5 players.

“Where one processor was slightly lacking in one area, it would slightly edge out the other one in another area.”

Good point & one which I wish some Intel/AMD fanatics (as that is what I consider them to be...extremists) should remember. Some postings that I have read in other Forums make me cringe with the amount of fanatical devotion to brand names. Brand loyalty when taken to an extreme is no better than any other form of extremism, whether it be national, ideological or religious. And lets be serious do we really think Intel/AMD give us near the loyalty that we give them? I doubt it.

“technology is both becoming more affordable and better - competition is wonderful (too bad there's no counterpart in Microsoft's world)! “

Don’t worry all good things come to those who wait. No one stays King forever. Microsoft is, & will, continue to be shaken up for the next decade & they will no doubt emerge a much better company for it. Whilst the consumer will be rewarded with a variety of realistically priced, good quality, easy-to-use, GUI based Operating Systems & Office Suites to choose from.

Much more to say, but way too little time.

May the coming Olympics in Sydney, Australia reminds us yet again of the value of competition. May the best companies win. Let the Games commence.

Cheers.......Son of Zeus.

tonyg101
09-06-2000, 05:48 AM
I thought I would like to add my two cents worth since I have been running an AMD K6 II 450mhz CPU, a 100mhz mobo with a VIA chipset. Cost was a major consideration in the purchase as the equivalent CPU and bus speeds in the Intel were $500 to $800 dearer at hte time (NZ $). And having used the AMD 450 for the past 2 years have found it to be very realiable and fast in running about all the software I've thrown at it. With one exception, which was an Intel Server Training video on CD ROM. (rather ironic that isn't it) due to the floating point math the video program needed to run it.

However aside from programmer pranks like that, who have a point to make for Intel, those kinds of problems have been non-existent.

In balance I will add that because of the competition that has been ongoing between Intel and AMD, I have recently been able to afford to build a new computer, an Intel PIII 667mhz CPU, 133mhz bus with VIA chipset on the mobo. This has only come about due to the sharp decline in the Intel prices.

Next on the shopping list will be one of those AMD atholon thunderbird jobbies 900mhz or faster......Urg! Urg! Urg! Urrggg! (Tim the Tool Man Taylor for the uneducated)



[This message has been edited by tonyg101 (edited 09-06-2000).]

ReddDogg
09-06-2000, 07:29 PM
I am an AMD fan myself, while I only have an Athlon 600 and an Athlon 500 system in my possession, I have also a celeron 366, a celeron 433, a PII300, an AMD K6 333, a P133, a p75, amd 486 equivlent, and and one 486 system in my house right now that I own, I still would rather have an Amd product over an intel product. True it is mostly personal opinion, but I have sat my Althon 500, running 128 megs of generic pc100 ram, (whatever brand it is, it works great with my athlon) using a diamond viper 770 32 meg video card, soundblaster pci128, linksys 10/100 ethernet card, and a diamond supra (best software based modem by the way) 56i pci modem. it sat next to a PIII 500 with 32 meg voodoo video, 128 megs of Dell Ram, us robotics ethernet card, soundblaster pci128, and no modem installed. My system ran Ages of Empires faster, booted faster, and ran microsoft powerpoint faster though same slide show. PIII won the microsoft word battel, and it was a virtual tie in the rest of the office products, access and excell. Perl scripts ran faster on my machine, but cobol program that connects to mainframe ran a tad faster on intel processor. What do I conclude? No difference was very noticable. Bye the way, we both had ibm maxtor 20 gig 7200 rpm hard drives, both from same shipment. However, Athlon costs less, and I have not had any problems with their processor overheating yet, and they can be overclocked like crazy if you choose to do so.

At anyrate, I use AMD products, I prefer them, but no reason to fight about it, i did my own side by side test and decided to use Athlon.


------------------
Joe Redd
MCP

Flight23
10-11-2004, 08:38 PM
INTEL vs AMD...

the sweet rivalry... the competition...

the processors cant be compared easily because... where one lack the other compensates...

always pushing a mhz UP... increasing performance... and placing our PC to a faster grounds...

one thing i like bout athlons... CHEAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

performance to bucks comparison... AMD would win...

rond36
10-11-2004, 09:46 PM
This thread is 4 years old!!!

Please don't post replies to very old threads.

There are newer threads along the same lines here (http://www.pcguide.com/vb/showthread.php?t=32526) and here (http://www.pcguide.com/vb/showthread.php?t=32219).