Printable View
What are peoples preferences when it comes to a processor/motherboard package for producing. I'm thinking of upgrading my pc, bearing in mind my budget is around £120 for MB and processor.
I have looked at AMD 64bit but there seem to be problems, anyone else know about this?
I'm currently running athlon xp2500+ and abit nf7s MB
From what I understand the situation is like this...
AMD are cheaper than Intel.
No major software manufacturers endorse AMD.
Anecdotally, most users seem to think AMDs out-perform Intel chips.
I'd never buy an Intel over an AMD, personally.
Thanks. seems to be the recomended path
dunno what problems there are with the athlon64, but i have been using one with an asus motherboard for the last year and there have been no major prolems for me.
new amd processors generate les heat then intels and are generally much more overclockable. not to mention cheaper and more likely to outperform intel.
mind you, i have both intel and amd and that was my imho.
i read an article that amd only outperfrom intel in one test (the test so happens to be undertaken by amd) all other tests intel come out on top. (and these are done indepandantly)
wish i could find the article
Generally, I think benchmarks are useful but far from conclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by nervous systems
The generally accepted belief is that an AMD rated for however-many GHz is generally as fast or faster than Intels rated at higher clock speeds.
ive always used amd, and when i was a computer seller man, i always pushed them, cheaper and always less trouble....from a company that had loads of trouble with their machines in general (Time Computers)
currently im using a AMD Athlon 64 3200 and even tho its the first computer i tried to put together myself, nay trouble at all!!
is overclocking hard to do/ worth it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Miromiric
Never attempted it myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by stjohn
Always seemed to be the computer-geek equivalent of getting a body-kit for your clapped out Nova.
Get a decent processor and you're not going to have a problem. (For a while). Plus, you don't open yourself up to frying your hardware!
Side note: We got two new Athlon 64 processors, and two barebones (motherboard, case and PSU only) systems to put them in today. We had them both up and running inside of an hour.
I work on both platforms with no preference at all. It all depends on how your system is set up.
Thanks for your feedback folks, very useful
amd all the way, for the same reasons as everybody has mentioned above
AMD Outperforms Intel in almost every area...
i dont think so.. i cant say anything bad on Intel except it¨s little more expensive than AMD, but more powerfull and better in stabiltiy, and also Intel will be very good in 2006. They already introduced a processor with much better architecture, so there will be no Net Burst or things liek that. It's Intel Core Duo and it is 65nm (the fastest AMD is 90nm). Intel can do on 45nm which is two times more powerfull than AMD. These Intels new procesors are called Conroe for desktops and Yonah for notebooks. Intel Core Duo Conroe will be 4.0 Ghz and it should be twice faster than AMD.. This will be a good year for Intel...Quote:
Originally Posted by dj_lane
TechMouse where did you get your barebones systems from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodStar
Problem is most audio software doesn't support multiple processors/cores.
Yeah, bu it will do.
Besides it isnt what the processor does that counts its how the OS addresses it. Its pretty pointless talking about the speed of chips when the bus isnt capable of a decent through-put.
I've been running a p4 2.4 for ages now on a 533FSB and there is plenty of power there for all sorts. I've never had a problem with either pentium or AMD.
Get a decent chip and then get a UAD card and a decent soundcard with good convertors...
;)
I have always had AMD.
Now I am using the 64-bit...although support for it in terms of OS is a bit slow. In 32-bit OS etc it is kick-ass.