Intel or AMD

justsomeguy · Post by **justsomeguy** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 5:30 am

Well, what do you like better?

pdj · Post by **pdj** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 5:39 am

I've got AMD- no probs with it...it all boils down to the brand: if you want to get the same product but, pay less go with AMD-me thinks-

U.S.Amateurfilmaker · Post by **U.S.Amateurfilmaker** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:26 am

AMD all the way! More efficient than an intel, and the only consumer-grade processor that currently offers 64-bit compatability (hey people, it's the future of computing!)

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:54 pm

have we not been through this b4?

Raptor · Post by **Raptor** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 5:05 pm

Grant wrote:have we not been through this b4?

No, that thread was AMD or Intel

This is Intel or AMD.....

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 12:05 am

ohhh welll ok AMD for price, INTEL for reliability. Celeron or Duron are no consideration at all in thie buyers market

Raptor · Post by **Raptor** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 2:17 am

ohhh welll ok AMD for price, INTEL for reliability. Celeron or Duron are no consideration at all in thie buyers market

AMD is a different animal than a few years ago - The Athlon XP and MP chips are great stable performers, no more heat issues, and never miss a beat. I'm in the ongoing process of upgrading all my servers to Dual Athlon MP systems. File servers, print servers and web server all running Server 2003 and a server'03/Exchange03 mail server - no failures or hardware related errors on any system so far. Having always been a big Intel fan, I have found the AMD chips to perform as reliably as any Intel chips I have running, Including a couple of Dual P3 servers. Need to revisit AMD again Grant, I think you will be pleasantly surprised!

pdj · Post by **pdj** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 2:47 am

I'm running Athlon XP- couldn't be happier

Truggy · Post by **Truggy** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:55 am

IM running a P4 2.6 ghz...He!l as long as it works fine i dont care

...

Epsilon · Post by **Epsilon** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 4:03 am

Why are we back to this thread again? I like my Intel.

Truggy · Post by **Truggy** » Fri May 07, 2004 12:58 pm

I "heard" well saw actually on a webpage: Ok, let me explain this. THere is a new processor out called "The Pentium Xeon"....Now it runs in servers right now, say IBM school servers or whatever. I heard in the next 2 years there gonna start puttin em in machines. But still my comp works so i dont care lol.

Raptor · Post by **Raptor** » Fri May 07, 2004 8:13 pm

Truggy wrote:I "heard" well saw actually on a webpage: Ok, let me explain this. THere is a new processor out called "The Pentium Xeon"....Now it runs in servers right now, say IBM school servers or whatever. I heard in the next 2 years there gonna start puttin em in machines. But still my comp works so i dont care lol.

The XEON has been out for several years, It is just a pentium class proc with more on die cache, definitely a server level chip though....

Post by **Matt** » Fri May 07, 2004 11:21 pm

I prefer AMD because they are cheaper. The last Intel chip I had was a 486 DX 66. Now that rocked

I think it was the 12Mb RAM that did it ....

Also AMD don't waste money on stupid adverts with dancers in multicoloured boiler suits!!

ssj3gohan · Post by **ssj3gohan** » Sun May 09, 2004 10:02 am

I'd go for the intel bcuz of their clock frequency. I do alot with 3ds max and stuff, and strangely enough clock frequency seems to do more good than efficiency per clock; however, modern day chips, as with a lot of electronics, aren't bad. They're simple a tad bit better or something like that. For general purpose i'd be asstounded if there would be a big difference between intel&amd procs.

Epsilon · Post by **Epsilon** » Mon May 10, 2004 5:57 am

ssj3gohan wrote:I'd go for the intel bcuz of their clock frequency. I do alot with 3ds max and stuff, and strangely enough clock frequency seems to do more good than efficiency per clock; however, modern day chips, as with a lot of electronics, aren't bad. They're simple a tad bit better or something like that. For general purpose i'd be asstounded if there would be a big difference between intel&amd procs.

I concur. I've been considering a dual xeon processor for a new system recently. My 3ds renders take a long time and the larger projects take sometimes 2 minutes/frame. And when the sequence is 1000 frames long, Yikes!

MFrosty · Post by **MFrosty** » Mon May 10, 2004 8:32 am

It doesn't even make sense to have a 64-bit processor right now because there is nothing that can take adantage of it. And by the time they do have operating systems, hardware and software that can utilize a 64-bit processors power, then the processor you have now will be too slow for it (most likely). And by that time Intel will have 64-bit processors and they will be just as good, if not better. By the way, I'm torn between AMD and Intel processors right now because they both have so much too offer.

ssj3gohan · Post by **ssj3gohan** » Mon May 10, 2004 6:14 pm

Epsilon: wow, that's a long time. 2 mins/frame; i wouldn't even dare to begin with such a project (I btw don't have the money to ever begin building my own net renderer). The average project i'd be rendering is something like the sequence you can see when you click on the 'More?' link in my signature.
MFrosty: There is a windows xp 64-bit I think (or is it win2003 64bit?) and discreet/autodesk and jasc are working on 64-bit versions of their (extremely high-demanding) programmes. But I agree, that's just some (semi)professional software, most of the popular software isn't and won't be in the near future 64-bit. There is little use in paying that 50-100 dollar extra for a 64-bit processor when actual performance will not be positively affected. (hardware: agp supports up to 256-bit!)

MattHawkins Online - Film Making Forum

Intel or AMD

do you prefer intel or amd?

Intel or AMD