AMD or Intel For A Game Computer?

[apax999]

Hi,

Sometime within the next 3-4 months, I plan on purchasing an Alienware or VoodooPC (custom gaming computer builders). For gaming purposes, is AMD or Intel better to have engine the computer? Will Intel have a 3.0 ghz out in 3-4 months? AMD only has a 2600 out as of now...which equals something like 2.1 ghz. Are they planning on getting any faster processors out sooner rather then later to compete Intel?

Thanks.

-apax999@yahoo.com

 

[mat]

intel will be at 3.06 GHz (with HyperThreading) very soon. (Oct or November i heard)

But the 3.06 P4 wont run in most current mainboards (you'll need one with 845PE/GE or better)

IMO intel has currently the better CPUs/Chipsets (especially when they launch their Dual DDR Chip E7205 aka Granite Bay).

IIRC AMD will release (paper launch?) an 2800+ sometimes (no idea when) with a faster FSB (166 MHz/333 DDR)

 

[Rodéric]

ASUS A7V8X + Athlon XP 2000+
RadeOn 8500

It's plenty of power IMO.
Enough for current and incoming games I think.

No need to pay too much for a system you'll need to replace too soon anyway.

 

[mat]

just to clarify my post

i didnt say that you should get a 3.06 GHz P4 (it will be really expensive like all high end intel CPUs), i just said intel will launch one quite soon.

i'd personally recomend a 2.4 GHz P4 now (or if you want to have a cheaper PC a 1800+ or 2000+ AMD)

 

[Nite_Hawk]

I guess it comes down to how much you want to spend, and what you want to get for it. If you only want to spend around $100 on a cpu, AMD would be your best bet:

the best deal on pricewatch for an intel cpu close to $100 is a 1.6Ghz P4 for $113. For $22 less, you could get a 2000+ cpu from AMD for $91, and if you really don't want to spend money, you can get the 1700+ for $59.

If on the otherhand, you are more interested in spending around $200, you could have the 2.4GHz P4 on a 533Mhz bus for $189 which is $10 less than the 2400+ athlon at $199, so in this case buying the P4 would probably make more sense.

Granted, these prices change all the time, and it's possible intel, amd, or both are planning on lowering their prices sometime soon.

Whatever way you decide to go, you'll be getting a good cpu. I don't think you'd really be making a mistake either way. (unless you skimp on other things to buy the fastest/most expensive cpu out).

Nite_Hawk

 

[duncan36]

Well theres a reason why the Athlon isnt in the Xbox and its not because Intel lowballed AMD.

Having said that Athlon XPs are so inexpensive that I bought one anyway. Though I do have to put up with more crashes and stability issues, especially in games, than I did with my Intel system. Plus the heat! This Athlon XP 2000 runs between 52 and 56 degrees C!

 

[Thowllly]

Well theres a reason why the Athlon isnt in the Xbox and its not because Intel lowballed AMD.

Having said that Athlon XPs are so inexpensive that I bought one anyway. Though I do have to put up with more crashes and stability issues, especially in games, than I did with my Intel system. Plus the heat! This Athlon XP 2000 runs between 52 and 56 degrees C!

This reminds me of another similar thread where I posted my success story, but I'll repeat it anyway.

I have an Athlon T-bird 900Mhz on a Abit kt7-raid (via kt133 chipset), and after I installed Windows XP some 8 months ago, it never crashes. (OK, it bluescreened when I tried overclocking...) And I use my computer several hours every day. I've had my CPU reach 66 degrees C without any problems, and that's with an external temp probe (they usually reports lower temperatures than internal ones).

So I always find it very odd when people complain of instability on Athlons. Have I simply been very lucky? I don't know.

But back on topic, a 56 degree CPU shouldn't give you any trouble, I just visited a friend who was really happy because he just managed to lower his CPU temp from 71 to 65 degrees! And he had no stability problems either! (That was an Athlon XP 1700+ on a kt266)

I feel like an asshole for bragging about the stability of my machine when others have problems, but my point is that the problem might not be the CPU. Some common problems:

1. Bad memory or memory running with too aggressive timings. Test the memory with a memory testing program. (And let it run overnight. I once had to let a memory tester run for several hours before the first error occurred. )

2. Low quality MB. Buy from Asus, or someone else that has a reputation for quality and reliability.

3. Bad power supply. Check the voltages.

4. Crappy OS, like Windows95.

5. And probably many more that I can't think of...


Edit: Added crappy OS to the list. And I just wanted to add: You shouldn't just accept that a computer crashes sometimes. A computer isn't supposed to crash, if it does, there is something wrong somewhere.

 

[BRiT]

Do not fall for the megahurtz myth. Even though the AMD cpus run at lower raw speeds than the Intel cpus, the AMD XP+ rating is roughly on par with the equivalent Intel offering. This is possible because the AMD cpus do more work per clock-rate than the Intel cpus [higher IPC].

Take a look at some reviews of teh AMD XP 2800+ that are floating around on the net. In some areas, the AMD cpu wins out over the Intel cpu. In other areas, the Intel cpu wins out. Check out TechReport, AcesHardware, and [H]ardOCP as they have a pretty good variety of game and non-game benchmarks run.

Since it seems like you're going to be buying a pc and not building one, I assume you can afford the premium that requires. With that said, go for the fastest thing they have available at the time. Currently, I think the AlienWare and VoodooPC both have the ATI-9700 video card as top-end choice. It is the fastest video card out today.

Caveat: things may change in 3 to 4 months.

--|BRiT|

 

[Nite_Hawk]

I've found that after building a number of athlons that stability issues are Very much related to:

A. The motherboard
B. The Ram
C. The powersupply

We have some cheap PCs we built at work with crappy no-name powersupplies, cheap shuttle motherboards, and generic ram. The things crash all the time.

My work linux box has a decent powersupply, an abit kt133 based MB and no-name ram. It crashes maybe once every week or two.

My home system has a sparkle powersupply, a SIS 635 based MB (very stable chipset) and crucial ram. I've not had it crash in linux yet since I installed it last spring. (in windows a couple of hangs, but mostly due to overclocking and poorly written 3D games).

If you spend the money to buy quality parts, athlon systems can be very stable. It all has to do with what you buy though. You put crap in, you get crap out.

Nite_Hawk

 

[duncan36]

I agree thats partly the case, that BIOS settings, motherboard, etc contribute to stability issues.

But overall Intel processors are more stable, period. Any business that uses PC based servers and desktops where stability is a major concern use Intel processors. This isn't meant as a slight its just basically fact in the industry.

Also I disagree with heat being irrelevant. All things equal, a processor that runs at a higher temperature compared to another shows a less efficent design, and all things equal is going to be less stable than the cooler running processor.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

duncan36:

I'm interested to know how you've arrived at that conclusion. I've run a number of intel cpus in the past, and honestly I've had good ones and bad ones. My dual ppros for instance on a tyan motherboard were less stable than my dual celerons on a bp6 (which is pretty amazing considering how many bp6 motherboards had voltage issues). My athlon is on par with the bp6. It pretty much never crashes.

My guess is that when you think about intel systems, your not thinking about a bargain bin celeron on an SIS or via chipset with generic shitty memory. That's because you won't find a lot of intel cpus in this configuration. The cheapest 1.3GHz P4 is still above $100 on pricewatch. A 1700+ athlon on the otherhand is around $60. People that buy the cheapest possible components are going to go with AMD, and as a result, you'll see AMD cpus put into bargain-bin systems that crash all the time due to the poor quality of the components.

If you want to talk about efficiency of the cpu, all you need to do is look at the power requirements compared to it's speed. Pretty much everything going in is going to be output as heat. The newest AMD cpu listed at sandpile.org (a processor info site) is the 2200+ so I will use the equiv intel cpu as well:

2.2GHz P4 (0.13 micron PGA478 @ 1.5V)
----------------------------
Typical: 55.1W
Max: ~71W

2200+ Athlon (0.13 micron thoroughbred @1.65V)
Typical: 61.7W
Max: 67.9W

This shows the typical draw of the athlon several watts above a P4, but the Max under that of the P4. Similarly, I went out to Hardocp and looked at the new 2.8GHz P4 and 2800+ Athlon articles:

2.8GHz P4 Typical: 68.4W
2800+ Athlon Typical: 64.0W Max: 74.3W

Here, for the top end athlon vs P4, we see a very similar situation, only this time the athlon is several watts under the P4 for typical, and a max rating for the P4 is not given.

This puts the athlon and the P4 on pretty even grounds for power draw and speed (if you go by the PR rating). The P4s do seem to run cooler (about 10 degrees C from what I've seen), but then the P4s max rated temperature is about 10 degrees C under that of the athlons as well. Normal operating temperatures seem to be a good 20-30 degrees under the max for either CPU. Simply because the Athlon typically runs hotter (poorer heatsinks? Less thermal conductivity to the heatsink?) doesn't mean that it's any less efficient as a cpu, just that it's less efficient as a thermal conductor.

Nite_Hawk

 

[Saem]

Nite Hawk,

How did they come up with those wattage numbers, HardOCP that is.

From my understanding AMD's max is actually under a 60% CPU load, if I remember the fine print on their documents correctly.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

Saem:

The athlon 2800+ numbers are just listed under the "official specs" title, so I'm not totally sure. Here's a copy and paste from the article:

Here are the official specs on the 2800+:

L1 - 128KB and L2 - 256KB = 384KB Total Cache
Nominal Voltage: 1.65v
Die Size 84mm2
Transistor count: Approx: 37.6 million
Infrastructure: Socket A
Max Die Temp: 85 degrees Celsius
Typical Thermal Power: 64.0 W (62.0 W)
Max Thermal Power: 74.3 W (68.3 W)
Icc Typical (low power state): 5.4 A (5.9 A)
Icc Typical (working state): 38.8 A (37.6 A)
Icc (processor current) Max: 44.9 A (41.4 A)

The 2.8GHz P4 numbers come from the following jpeg:

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1030290265cNnKaIxkkt_1_9_l.gif

These numbers seem to coincide with the "typical" rating given at sandpile.

Not sure about the max processor utilization at 60%, though it'd be pretty underhanded if true. Not quite what I call "max"

Nite_Hawk

 

[duncan36]

You're preaching to the choir on price, but as far as stability goes you're denying reality.

 

[Saem]

Nite hawk,

This was discussed on RWT once. It was an underhanded number.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

duncan:

Really? I run an athlon at home, at work, and have previously run a number of intel cpus. The two servers I admin at work are intel machines. I've build and used P4 machines as well. What grasp of reality do you think that I'm lacking? You've not exactly provided much information to back up your point. My athlon system certainly seems to be stable. Care to prove me wrong?

Saem:

Would you happen to have any links? I'd be interested in reading up on it. That's really bad especially if you're gauging what kind of powersupply you need based on those numbers. A friend of mine for instance is running dual 2000+ cpus, and ended up using not only his cases 420W supply, but a 300W as well. (granted he's running something obscene like 5-6 HDs)

Nite_Hawk

Nite_Hawk

 

[Saem]

Nite_Hawk,

The thread has disappeared from RWT, old threads die their.

AMD's site is a place to start. I'll look when I can, but I'm on dial-up right now and it sucks searching, so I'm going to opt out of that for a while.

 

[BenM]

Well theres a reason why the Athlon isnt in the Xbox and its not because Intel lowballed AMD.

Having said that Athlon XPs are so inexpensive that I bought one anyway. Though I do have to put up with more crashes and stability issues, especially in games, than I did with my Intel system. Plus the heat! This Athlon XP 2000 runs between 52 and 56 degrees C!

Sounds like a user error to me. I've built 3 Athlon systems for myself, and more for friends. None of them have had issues. It's all in investing in quality components (which you should do for either AMD or Intel platforms.) The Intel platform maybe a bit more forgiving when it comes to memory selection, but that doesn't mean you should toss in some no name memory.

 

[Johnny Rotten]

How am I denying reality duncan? This athlon rig that I've been using for the last 2 years (on a via chipset nonetheless! GASP!) has been just as stable as my 3 intel PC's before it. Sure I've had the odd, sporadic crash. Guess what? I got those on the intel pc's to!! (DOUBLE GASP!)

 

[duncan36]

Well how can a person with any relevance tell how the stability of the AMD line compares to that of the Intel line based on 1 home PC?
Answer is they can't.

Now when a corporation's IT department picks Intel over AMD despite the AMD contract being $100,000 less expensive, well then that says something about AMD's stability compared to Intel's.

Corporations almost exclusively use Intel products. That definitely says more about stability than 1 home PC wouldnt you agree?