Intel Vs AMD - Which to choose?
I can't be the first to ask this question but hopefully i'll be the last. I've tried the find an answer to this question but no threads has any answer. 
A local computer vendor told me that AMD is better for games while Intel is better for pure cpu power stuff like converting movies and music and for that matter f@h.
I was very surprised when i looked at the sigs in this forum and notised that something like 90-95 % of you use AMD yet you're folding which isn't a game.
Also is there some way to compare the 2 brands for instance is a a 2600 athlon xp similar in speed to a 2.6 ghz p4? I and many others would be helpful for advice.
A local computer vendor told me that AMD is better for games while Intel is better for pure cpu power stuff like converting movies and music and for that matter f@h.I was very surprised when i looked at the sigs in this forum and notised that something like 90-95 % of you use AMD yet you're folding which isn't a game.
Also is there some way to compare the 2 brands for instance is a a 2600 athlon xp similar in speed to a 2.6 ghz p4? I and many others would be helpful for advice.
0
Comments
The P4 does have one up on the Athlon when it comes to folding: The newest P4's have "HyperThreading" which allows the computer to see one physical CPU, yet allow applications to work with 2 logical processors. Because of the architecture of the P4, it takes 20 stages for the CPU to complete a calculation. In order to make the CPU more efficient, Intel allows more than 1 calculation to operate in the 20-stage pipeline at one time, more thoroughly using the P4 architecture. In Folding, the P4 with HyperThreading (HT) can run 2 instances of folding at once, compared to AMD's single. Yes, the AMD can fold faster on certain units, but in a slightly longer timeframe, the Intel can complete 2 units, while the AMD only has completed 1 and started on it's second unit.
In general day-to-day use, both AMD and Intel provide platforms that will give you a machine that will be very fast, responsive and reliable.
The P4 has the upper hand in digital content creation: Most applications used in content creation (video editing, music, movies, pictures, etc..) are optimized to utilize the P4's special set of instruction called SSE & SSE2 (SSE was introduced first on the P3 and SSE2 was introduced on the P4). These special instructions are designed to maximize the speed at which the P4 can perform calcuations. With most content creation programs using these optimizations, it's easy to see the P4 will offer substantially better performance in this instance.
In gaming, I'd say that both the P4 & Athlon will give approximately the same performance. Gaming today really relies on the video card you have, so if you plan on gaming, a high-end ATI Radeon (9600 or higher) would be in order
That's the lowdown
//Edit: Regarding AMD's "XP+" rating system on their processors. AMD's processors can perform more work per clock cycle than their Intel counterparts can. However, CPU's have always been sold & marketed according to their MHz rating (or GHz rating now-adays). Because AMD's processors do more work per clock cycle than Intel's, they don't need to run as fast as Intel's CPU's in order to perform the same level of work. Therefore, AMD introduced the XP+ rating system as a benchmark between AMD's Athlon XP processors and the older AMD Athlon "Thunderbird" processors (IE AMD's second generation Athlon that came in Socket A). Now-aday's, it's common place to believe that the AMD Athlon XP at a certain XP+ rating speed (ie. 2600+) is approximately the same speed as the competing Intel P4 2600.
There are other factors that come into play when selecting a platform. Memory bandwidth, stability of the system, overclockability (if you wish) and features all play a big role in selecting a system.
I fold, create digital content and play games on both a P4 2.4C (800 MHz FSB) that's overclocked to 3.0 GHz and an AMD Athlon XP 2500+ overclocked to 3200+ level. I'm happy with both, but my personal preference is Intel's P4.
AMD @ 2600+ cpu level = cheaper, more efficient (more instructions per clock cycle tho fewer clock cycles run), in general not quite as overclockable in pure MHz.
Intel @ 2.6C = HyperThreading (simulates 2 cpu's for some applications such as Folding), more overclockable in pure MHz (my 2.6 runs @ 3.3+), won't be *quite* as fast feeling @ stock settings as a 2600+, will cost you more $$, does give very superior memory bandwidth due to "quad pumped" fsb @ 200 or higher if you overclock.
Your results are dependant on other factors, including mobo/memory/vid card, not to mention your own expectations. In my personal experience, neither is better than the other at gaming, tho I have good video cards in both systems.
I have both (AMD 2100+/P4 2.6C). I am happy with both. I overclock both. I Fold and game on both.
OC, AMD, hands down. Non-OC, consider actual true MHz if not gaming. My P4 favors nVidia, the Barton will work with eithr equally well, and that is actually not a pure processor preference but a driver thing as right now nVidia has better drivers for teh GPUs they OFFER until you get into very high end Radeons which can do things that nVidia cannot do right now with DirectX 9.0 (which the majority of games in use do not fully use and some BALK at, I would stick with DirectX 8.1 for a mostly cheaper gaming box right now).
Intel does 2D better, reason is simple, it has a processor that is ALU tuned.
FPU=Floating Point Unit, used with vector graphics, better with scalar lines and fills and AA graduation calcs on vector planes-- uses logarithm\antilogarithm logic better.
ALU=Arithmetic Logic Unit, better for integer calcs like straight addition, subtraction, INTEGER division, INTERGER multiplying, etc.
Both CPUS switch back and forth between these two subcore calc units, AMD pumped the FPU calc speeds more than the ALU, and Intel more balanced them and feeds graphics a tib slower than AMD out of same MHz CPU (compare Duron to Celeron, Barton to P4, or VERY OC'd XP+ to P4)-- so my AMD box will be ending up with a faster video card with more RAM to balance faster feed and not bog by sticking stuff into main RAM to buffer a fast CPU with a slightly older card, while my Intel box is happier to blaze with a lesser video card as it feeds 3D slower normally.
John.
Wow 1 hour later and 4 posts, that's fast. Please continue posting though because i wouldn't mind more comments. BTW i already knew what hyperthreading but i thought that it would make a bigger differens.
Without support for smt/hyperthreading an app will hit the CPU as if it was any other single CPU by placing an equal load on each "half" of the CPU (as the OS sees the CPU as 2 separate CPU's) and the same goes for a MP system as well unless you assign affinity to one CPU or the other.