Advice needed...for a computer

[gaurav_indian]

So AMD is cheaper than Pentium processors?Also I have heard that AMD processors gets hot and it require two three fans inside the cabinet.

 

[blackleopard92]

So AMD is cheaper than Pentium processors?Also I have heard that AMD processors gets hot and it require two three fans inside the cabinet.

A super old thought.In fact AMD uses 40% less power than current intel chips for same performance.

AMD is cheaper than equivalent intels by about Rs 1000- 2000.Except Dual core AMDs

 

[cricket_lover]

thanks people, for the comments. Looks like i'll go ahead and buy the AMD Athlon 3500+, with GeForce 6100.

Thanks again.

 

[blackleopard92]

thanks people, for the comments. Looks like i'll go ahead and buy the AMD Athlon 3500+, with GeForce 6100.

Thanks again.

If u notice, I have been shouting hoarse on almost every post that.

GeForce 6100<<< ATI RS480 onboard chipset!!!,

buy a ATI RS480 based motherboard and u will thank me from stopping u making an aweful decision.

 

[Ritwik]

A super old thought.In fact AMD uses 40% less power than current intel chips for same performance.

AMD is cheaper than equivalent intels by about Rs 1000- 2000.Except Dual core AMDs

AMD ain't cheaper than intel the last time I checked (which was a week ago) atleast with a good motherboard. An MSI motherboard with AMD 3800+ costs Rs. 20500 while an equivalent Intel 945GNT Motherboard with Intel Pentium D 2.8 GHz costs Rs. 17500.

Also, I don't really believe that the power consumption figures are as significantly lower than Intel as you make it out to be. A few things must be noted before buying AMD:

1. Most applications except for games are optimized for Intel processors, so must office computers are equipped with Intel processors (one of the reasons why Dell doesn't make AMD processor based systems).
2. AMD processors are meant for overclocking and are far superior than Intel in this regard, however overclocked processors draw a lot more power and heat up very quickly, thereby negating the "power saving" factor.
3. Outside of the US/Canada, Intel has a far far stronger tech support, which can be very important in case of crucial components like motherboards and processors.

AS far as Intel onboard graphics are concerned, I'd suggested that as an option when the budget is quite severely restrictive - and its not a bad option at that. the Intel 945GNT motherboard has an optimized graphics engine which supports Pixel Shader 2.0 and Direct X 9, which makes it fully Vista compliant and more than sufficient for watching movies, playing games like Cricket 2005 etc. This onboard graphics solution comprehensively outperformed older geforce cards and the 7300GS in tests conducted by extremetech.com

 

[cricket_lover]

If u notice, I have been shouting hoarse on almost every post that.

GeForce 6100<<< ATI RS480 onboard chipset!!!,

buy a ATI RS480 based motherboard and u will thank me from stopping u making an aweful decision.

i don't now if any of the PC's in the retail stores here have that. Its a package deal.

I don't think i can assemble a computer, but there is Radeon Express 200 that i might be able to get instead of GeForce 6100.

 

[blackleopard92]

but there is Radeon Express 200 that i might be able to get instead of GeForce 6100.

Radeon EXpress 200 is the is the onboard graphics soln included with motherboard.
I have MSI RS480.check Asus, MSI, and other companies website to find motherboards based on RS480.

AMD ain't cheaper than intel the last time I checked (which was a week ago) atleast with a good motherboard. An MSI motherboard with AMD 3800+ costs Rs. 20500 while an equivalent Intel 945GNT Motherboard with Intel Pentium D 2.8 GHz costs Rs. 17500.

I have bought my AMD 3000+ and MSI RS480 motherboard for Rs 12000 8 months ago.
for low cost affordable soln, nothing beats it

Also, I don't really believe that the power consumption figures are as significantly lower than Intel as you make it out to be.

Raw facts:

I suppose u underestimated intel's hungriness for power.

1. Most applications except for games are optimized for Intel processors, so must office computers are equipped with Intel processors (one of the reasons why Dell doesn't make AMD processor based systems).

I say I was going ROFL would be an underastatement. :rofl:

What do u mean?MS office is optimised for intel? or start menu would open about0.0001 sec faster

THe difference counts in gaming, heavy duty apps.and the are both optimised for different processors.ANd it's here intel loses.the don't have enough to surpass AMD even with so called ' optimisations ' :rofl:

2. AMD processors are meant for overclocking and are far superior than Intel in this regard, however overclocked processors draw a lot more power and heat up very quickly, thereby negating the "power saving" factor.

AMD wins over intel with without overclocking.And even when overclocked, they still draw far less power than standard intels!
Not to mention that overclocked AMD eat intels for lunch.

3. Outside of the US/Canada, Intel has a far far stronger tech support, which can be very important in case of crucial components like motherboards and processors.

hmmm, I never consider this fact.Hardly matters, there is enough support in India fo rme.

AS far as Intel onboard graphics are concerned, I'd suggested that as an option when the budget is quite severely restrictive - and its not a bad option at that. the Intel 945GNT motherboard has an optimized graphics engine which supports Pixel Shader 2.0 and Direct X 9, which makes it fully Vista compliant and more than sufficient for watching movies, playing games like Cricket 2005 etc. This onboard graphics solution comprehensively outperformed older geforce cards and the 7300GS in tests conducted by extremetech.com

Frankly, I lost count of what intel started offering after 915.All I know is that ATI onboard soln beat the hell out of it.Even nvidia beats them, but they stopped making onboard solns for nforce 4.

Also, RS480/580/520 all are from a video gard making company, remember AT.So all that bell and whistles ar in it, like directx 9.0, pixel/vertex shader 2.0 etc.
And by the way, RS480(Express 200) was a direct competitor for 915.

not sure what they have for 945, maybe x1100 Express.

 

[Ritwik]

I say I was going ROFL would be an underastatement. :rofl:

What do u mean?MS office is optimised for intel? or start menu would open about0.0001 sec faster

THe difference counts in gaming, heavy duty apps.and the are both optimised for different processors.ANd it's here intel loses.the don't have enough to surpass AMD even with so called ' optimisations ' :rofl:

Er, it seems you're underestimating CPU optimization. To see the drastic difference in performance when an app optimized for a particular family of processors is run on other, look no further than the MAC OS X on intel. This OS functions about half as fast as a comparable configuration based on a G4 processor. The difference may not be as striking between Intel and AMD, the fact remains that Intel is still the top choice of offices around the world. Just check how many PC vendors are building office/business PCs with AMD processors and everything will become clear as daylight.

hmmm, I never consider this fact.Hardly matters, there is enough support in India fo rme.

Man, your Indian "tech support" guy is gonna go bonkers when your motherboard quits on you. Trust me, its happened with me before and Intel sent a replacement (new!) board within a week. Show me one case where that has happened with AMD and its licencees (since AMD doesn't itself make boards). Again it is a matter of reliability, which is vital in case of an office environment.

And the 12-15 W difference in power consumption hardly matters nowadays, when everybody has 350+ W of power supply.

So the sum result of the discussion is that although AMD has been fast catching up with Intel over the years, and has surpassed the latter in terms of Gaming, it remains an enthusiast's processor, while Intel is good for almost everybody due to the Price/performance/reliability/service ratio and is the top choice for offices and businesses.

 

[slade]

For me AMD is better for gaming and INtel is better for video encoding/decoding. If you are not goiing to do either extensively, I would just go for the cheapest. Over here, AMD is a lot cheaper than INtel. Theres about a difference of ?40 between a 3.2 gig intel and a 3200+ AMD.

 

[blackleopard92]

Er, it seems you're underestimating CPU optimization. To see the drastic difference in performance when an app optimized for a particular family of processors is run on other, look no further than the MAC OS X on intel. This OS functions about half as fast as a comparable configuration based on a G4 processor. The difference may not be as striking between Intel and AMD

MAC OS X are a different breeds, in time there would be no diff.
And as u say, the difference may not be significance, I can tell u its non existance.
gone are the days of MMX optimised intel softwares.

that Intel is still the top choice of offices around the world. Just check how many PC vendors are building office/business PCs with AMD processors and everything will become clear as daylight

Intel is the choice( not any longer due to power problems of intel) because of support systems, which intel is defn leader.

As for PC vendors building office/business PCs based on intel, it just that AMD hasn't put up a glitz campain like intel does.Add to the fact that PC vendors generally run on contracts( 3yr contract with intel etc), they are bound to make them.
It's amazing u try to logic with them when they are almost illogical in their PC configs.(128 MB RAM, for todays world )

Also, this happens only in India.Take a look in US markets, u will find AMD is in big demand.

Man, your Indian "tech support" guy is gonna go bonkers when your motherboard quits on you. Trust me, its happened with me before and Intel sent a replacement (new!) board within a week. Show me one case where that has happened with AMD and its licencees (since AMD doesn't itself make boards). Again it is a matter of reliability, which is vital in case of an office environment.

Interesting story.
but I can't say anything about it b/s i never have encountered persons who had their motherboard replaced.

And the 12-15 W difference in power consumption hardly matters nowadays, when everybody has 350+ W of power supply.

what? 10- 15? there is a diff of 30- 50 under full load!

So the sum result of the discussion is that although AMD has been fast catching up with Intel over the years, and has surpassed the latter in terms of Gaming, it remains an enthusiast's processor, while Intel is good for almost everybody due to the Price/performance/reliability/service ratio and is the top choice for offices and businesses.

AMD, due to poor implementation of net burst architecture, is actually behind AMD.AND ITS FINAL!

although conroe is going to beat hell out of AMD, but till it launches( in july)
AMD RULES.

while Intel is good for almost everybody due to the Price/performance/reliability/service ratio and is the top choice for offices and businesses.

It seems like u are a die hard intel supporter, and I am going to stop beating senses into u.
I can agree on support for corporates, but still saying those above lines is pure ridicule.

 

[Ritwik]

Also, this happens only in India.Take a look in US markets, u will find AMD is in big demand.

A matter of perception but certainly not a matter of fact. Show me one big US company except for Alienware providing AMD Only solutions. I've already said that AMD is better suited to gaming.

what? 10- 15? there is a diff of 30- 50 under full load!

I was using the data you had provided in this very thread. Do you not stand by it any more ?

It seems like u are a die hard intel supporter, and I am going to stop beating senses into u.
I can agree on support for corporates, but still saying those above lines is pure ridicule.

No I am not at all a "die hard" Intel supporter, as a matter of fact I am not a die hard supporter or berator of any company. I've used CPUs from both brands and frankly speaking not discovered much of a gap between the two companies since the Athlon was released, prior to that of course Intels ruled the roost.
Instead of accusing me, perhaps you could look at yourself and find an inexplicable AMD supporter.

Frankly speaking, this is not something to argue about incessantly, since both companies are providing basically good products, as Slade has said above both have thier own strong suites, and are generally good for all computing tasks.

For me AMD is better for gaming and INtel is better for video encoding/decoding. If you are not goiing to do either extensively, I would just go for the cheapest. Over here, AMD is a lot cheaper than INtel. Theres about a difference of ?40 between a 3.2 gig intel and a 3200+ AMD.

An example of the common misconceptions that people harbour; AMD 3200+ doesn't run at 3.2GHz, since AMD has traditionally been measuring clock speeds in a different manner than Intel. A processor comparable to P4 3.2Ghz would be the 3500+ or the 3700+ (which incidentally is a superb performance/price processor).
Another thing that makes a vast difference in the processor performance are the L1 and L2 caches, and these must also be taken into account while buying a processor, since looking at only clock speeds can be counter-productive.

 

[blackleopard92]

A matter of perception but certainly not a matter of fact. Show me one big US company except for Alienware providing AMD Only solutions. I've already said that AMD is better suited to gaming.

no company would be mad enough to go for a single processor brand.I suppose u understand that.

I was using the data you had provided in this very thread. Do you not stand by it any more ?

Take a look at the data.I will do the calculation for u:
AMD 3500+ 90 mm 86W
intel 3.0 = 122W
intel 3.4 = 124 W

difference : 122- 86 =36W
124 - 86 = 38W

Full load:
AMD 3500+ 90 mm 114W
intel 3.0 = 195W
intel 3.4 = 207 W

Difference:
195 - 114 = 86W
207 - 114 = 93 W

avg of AMD's :
no load: 103.875 W
full load: 129.875 W

Avg of Intel:
no load:117W
full load:205W

Difference:
no load:12.125W

full load :79W

I support my data and I see I was wrong.Intel consumes an avg of 80W over AMD, and I though it was around 40/50.

No I am not at all a "die hard" Intel supporter, as a matter of fact I am not a die hard supporter or berator of any company. I've used CPUs from both brands and frankly speaking not discovered much of a gap between the two companies since the Athlon was released, prior to that of course Intels ruled the roost.
Instead of accusing me, perhaps you could look at yourself and find an inexplicable AMD supporter.

Frankly speaking, this is not something to argue about incessantly, since both companies are providing basically good products, as Slade has said above both have thier own strong suites, and are generally good for all computing tasks.

well, I not an 'die hard' AMD supporter.I just want to emphasis that net burst architecture(on which all P4 are made) is a totally flawed one, and I am trying to stop people for going for it.

It's an another story that conroe will beat the hell out of AMD for sure.it's 40% faster and consumes 40% less power than current P4s

An example of the common misconceptions that people harbour; AMD 3200+ doesn't run at 3.2GHz, since AMD has traditionally been measuring clock speeds in a different manner than Intel. A processor comparable to P4 3.2Ghz would be the 3500+ or the 3700+ (which incidentally is a superb performance/price processor).

very true.Al rule of thumb= subtract 400 from AMD processor to find equivalent intel.Not that they actually exist

Another thing that makes a vast difference in the processor performance are the L1 and L2 caches, and these must also be taken into account while buying a processor, since looking at only clock speeds can be counter-productive.

L1, L2 are considered for die hard consumers.They don't matter much for simple users.

clock speeds don't matter much.What matters is the end performance.

Try finding the best deals around u.