Which Processor should I get? - Tech Support Forums

radon · April 27th, 2003, 01:05 AM

Ok, I have been an AMD fan, but Intel is blowing them away. So I was wondering what processor I should get. Could you name some pros and cons of each, and which you prefer and why.

The 2 processors are the Intel 3.06 or Barton 3000+

davidamarkley · April 27th, 2003, 01:20 AM

Boy, there are alot of opinions flying around for Intel vs. Amd...

Ok, I'll tell you what I believe about both platforms. Others may disagree, but that's OK. (just don't listen to them!)

--AMD--

Pros:

Best bang for the buck.

Higher Floating-Point operations.(programs such as Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Premiere will run quite a bit quicker than running on Intel P4) As well as most programs will run just as good, if not better on an AMD then a P4. (IMO from experience)

They will last longer as far as upgrading goes. AMD tends to stick with their original design longer than Intel.(i.e. socket A has been around for a LONG time, while Intel can't figure out which socket and RAM it wants to stick with.)

Cheaper(for the most part).

There are some CPU versions that O/C extremely well. Most others will still give you a decent O/C.

Cons:

Quite expensive in the couple newest additions to the XP family.

They tend to run a little warmer than P4s.

Don't have quite as much cache as the P4s.

--Intel--

Pros:

Their Price vs. Performance is getting better.

Newest revisions have Hyper-Threading support. (some say it works, others say it doesn't)

Has a heat spreader on the CPU to help a little more with heat dissapation.

Runs a little cooler then an AMD. Thus is able to acheive higher O/C's with stock or non-high-performance cooling.

Cons:

Very Expensive for the latest CPUs.

Poor performance with DDR(compared to AMD) and RDRAM while faster, is harder to find, more expensive, and not many chipsets will support it.

May stop letting you O/C your CPU.

Switches platforms more often than AMD. (thus requiring you to upgrade more than just the CPU)

Well, this is the situation as I see it.

I have always liked AMD, and believe that definately there is a better 'Bang-for-the-Buck' in Athlons. And, have noticed at least(mostly better) same performance as the Intel for less $$.

Since you're talking about Athlon 3000+ exclusively against Intel 3.06Ghz, it could be a draw deoending on what you will be doing. Give us some examples so we can better help you.

David

The Punisher · April 27th, 2003, 01:20 AM

The Intel 3.06 kills the Barton 3000+ by not much but still overall, if I had the spare cash I would go with the Intel, I'll show you some benchmarks that were done comparing those two.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/index.html

Check it out, and READ! a lot of people don't, this should help you with your choice.

radon · April 27th, 2003, 01:26 AM

To David: I will prolly be using it for Adobe Photoshop, a lot of games, a lot of internet, and some school reports or projects

Hope that helps

davidamarkley · April 27th, 2003, 01:32 AM

Well, personally I like to buy two steps behind the bleeding-edge. That is where normally the best price to performance ratio is. I don't have the money to fork out for the Athlon 3000+ or the Intel 3.06 so personally I would get the Athlon 2500+ or the Athlon 2600+. They're both pretty cheap (<$200) and run on the 333FSB which is good. Couple them with an nForce2 board like the Asus A7N8X or the Epox 8RDA and 1GB of RAM and you'll have a NICE system. IMO, if you're wanting to do photoshop and a lot of games, while the difference between the 2600+ and the 3000+ can be noticed, I would spend the money I save from buying a lower CPU and get more and faster RAM, and possibly O/C the Athlon to get it to 3000+ speeds and even more.

David

PyroSama · April 27th, 2003, 02:08 AM

I would support the guys over at AMD every little bit helps.

PyroSama

dustyrun · April 27th, 2003, 02:12 AM

I do not know about the P4-3.06 but I do know about the Athlon XP3000+.....
I have the XP3000+, Asus A7N8x Deluxe and Kingston Hyper "X" pc3200 now and it runs like a ......Well you get the message...It is just the old question of how fast is FAST....again

Rick
imo

thronka · April 27th, 2003, 02:26 AM

AMD has the better price and resell value compared to intel which loses their value quicker. Maybe because people are demanding the old product. Intel is sorta a monopoly IMO so I stay away from those. They tend to break the product more than improve it. Example: I use AMD with Linux. 'Nuff said

Xtreeme · April 27th, 2003, 03:34 AM

Del

rastorize · April 27th, 2003, 03:59 AM

This is a debate that never seems to die...both companies produce good chips...but ultimately...

I vote for Intel.

- reliability
- quality
- speed & performance
- price is competitive with AMD
... a P4 3.06 Ghz is about $380 vs AMD XP 3000 @ $320.

If you can afford it, RDRAM and P4 combos are still the most competitive...otherwise dual channel DDR is the way to go.

The Punisher posted a link to the benchmarks at Tom's Hardware - if you don't want to read it, it can be summarized here:

"Our benchmarks showed that the Athlon XP 3000+ at standard clock speed (13 x 166 MHz = 2166 MHz) can't hold a candle to the P4 3.06 GHz together with the latest applications."