djaditya
So you are saying that an AMD is better than an Intel at the moment? right?
Posted Sun 03 Jul 05 @ 9:29 am
apopsisdj
Another vote for Amd
Posted Sun 03 Jul 05 @ 3:58 pm
djaditya
My new pc will have the same configs as DJ Cyder's ( i just found out through his blog;)
Posted Sun 03 Jul 05 @ 4:47 pm
clownius
intel is more of a multitasking processor, desktop functions and basic computer usage tends to be faster on the whole, but it depends on how much attention youre paying to it i guess.
indeed amd is alot faster, for basically one program at a time. why vdj's and gamers love it. for rackmount n laptops FOR vdj, id say amd for sure, but an intel will serve your average computer user better imo
if everything goes well for a few months, ill have another system with an amd cpu. IF evrything goes well...meh
indeed amd is alot faster, for basically one program at a time. why vdj's and gamers love it. for rackmount n laptops FOR vdj, id say amd for sure, but an intel will serve your average computer user better imo
if everything goes well for a few months, ill have another system with an amd cpu. IF evrything goes well...meh
Posted Mon 04 Jul 05 @ 6:17 am
acw_dj
AMD 64 it's not telling you all about his products. Anyone here have seen the CHIP specificacions for AMD and Intel?... If AMD is not telling all the truth, the FSB from AMD still behind from Intel... If I'm wrong why software to mesure the specs of a system is pointing to Intel as the number one hardware?. I known "If I'm using AMD I'm not wrong" I have doing some research about this and I have found that AMD is using another tech, but it doesn't is the BEST. You don't want to pay more, ok, but TODAY Intel have the fastest chips in the PC world.
Don't believe me if you don't want to but Anyone here is using DDR2 667MHz in there AMD64? Right now is only supporting DDR 400... And like that so many things also...
AMD is cheaper than Intel that's why is so popular. It's better? based in the AMD specs and Intel specs, Intel is better. More FSB, more CPU clock, more bandwith...
Don't believe me if you don't want to but Anyone here is using DDR2 667MHz in there AMD64? Right now is only supporting DDR 400... And like that so many things also...
AMD is cheaper than Intel that's why is so popular. It's better? based in the AMD specs and Intel specs, Intel is better. More FSB, more CPU clock, more bandwith...
Posted Mon 04 Jul 05 @ 11:57 pm
DJ Cyder
if intel is so great why isn't microsoft supporting its 64 chips?
Posted Tue 05 Jul 05 @ 12:10 am
acw_dj
Microsoft is supporting Intel 64 bits processors.
The only truth 64 bit processor is the Itanium processor by Intel.
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/itanium2/index.htm
Right now, AMD and Intel are supporting the 64 bit extension for Windows XP 64. But they are 32bits processors. Intel equivalent to AMD 64 is: EM64T
http://www.intel.com/technology/64bitextensions/index.htm
There are a few applications that NOW have full support 64 bits. How many 64 bits applications are now available in Windows XP?
In 2003 AMD was in 266FSB here are the tech specs.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/25175.pdf
See the chapter 6.2.
At DEC 2003 it was release the 400FSB support... There's no 1000FSB in 2003 and even now in 2005.
Now Atlhon XP 64 X2 Dual Core is supporting DDR 400 only. Same for Opteron, FX, and all the AMD family.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/33425.pdf
And it's top speed is 2.4GHz (4800+ Processor)
His CPU Only have a 2.8 GHz CPU (In FX57) and the top is in 2.4GHz even for his top 64 X2 Dual Core processor.
The top processor NOW is: Intel Dual-Core with Hyper Treading.
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentiumXE/index.htm
and Intel 3.73GHz, 2MB Cache, 1066 FSB, EM64T
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentium4HTXE/index.htm
For many others (like me) find a 3.2GHz, Cache 1MB, FSB 800, EM64T, HT like a top ranking processor (541 Intel processor. And is cheaper that the Extreme Edition family). If you want to run Windows XP 64, use a 521 Intel processor (any processor whit a 1 at the end; example: 521, 531, 641…)
You can find more helpful information in that links.
The only truth 64 bit processor is the Itanium processor by Intel.
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/itanium2/index.htm
Right now, AMD and Intel are supporting the 64 bit extension for Windows XP 64. But they are 32bits processors. Intel equivalent to AMD 64 is: EM64T
http://www.intel.com/technology/64bitextensions/index.htm
There are a few applications that NOW have full support 64 bits. How many 64 bits applications are now available in Windows XP?
In 2003 AMD was in 266FSB here are the tech specs.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/25175.pdf
See the chapter 6.2.
At DEC 2003 it was release the 400FSB support... There's no 1000FSB in 2003 and even now in 2005.
Now Atlhon XP 64 X2 Dual Core is supporting DDR 400 only. Same for Opteron, FX, and all the AMD family.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/33425.pdf
And it's top speed is 2.4GHz (4800+ Processor)
His CPU Only have a 2.8 GHz CPU (In FX57) and the top is in 2.4GHz even for his top 64 X2 Dual Core processor.
The top processor NOW is: Intel Dual-Core with Hyper Treading.
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentiumXE/index.htm
and Intel 3.73GHz, 2MB Cache, 1066 FSB, EM64T
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentium4HTXE/index.htm
For many others (like me) find a 3.2GHz, Cache 1MB, FSB 800, EM64T, HT like a top ranking processor (541 Intel processor. And is cheaper that the Extreme Edition family). If you want to run Windows XP 64, use a 521 Intel processor (any processor whit a 1 at the end; example: 521, 531, 641…)
You can find more helpful information in that links.
Posted Tue 05 Jul 05 @ 1:06 am
clownius
all noted, good info dude.
Posted Tue 05 Jul 05 @ 9:52 am
djaditya
Hmm.. according to some contacts in the pc peripheral market, Im told that speed is different for different processors.
An intel 3.7 GHz processor maynot always be faster than an AMD4000+. This is a fact because each company likes to use their own ways of testing the speed and this is true...read some reviews about processors. Or go to www.howstuffworks.com and check with processor!
An AMD at the moment has 64bit processing interface, but intel with ht is still a 32 bit. If you are going for an Intel for its "high speed" 3.7Ghz or so, then you would pretty soon feel the need to change, when evrything becomes available in 64bit (hopefully, including VDJ).
Some benchmark games like DOOM3 and FarCry(64bit) have results that show better performances on AMD64s than Intel HTs-some points to consider while working on resource hungry applications.
My opinion: Intel- Work/Soft.Development.
AMD64- Entertainment/Multimedia.
visit this webpage read a few reviews on Processors- www.pcstats.com
An intel 3.7 GHz processor maynot always be faster than an AMD4000+. This is a fact because each company likes to use their own ways of testing the speed and this is true...read some reviews about processors. Or go to www.howstuffworks.com and check with processor!
An AMD at the moment has 64bit processing interface, but intel with ht is still a 32 bit. If you are going for an Intel for its "high speed" 3.7Ghz or so, then you would pretty soon feel the need to change, when evrything becomes available in 64bit (hopefully, including VDJ).
Some benchmark games like DOOM3 and FarCry(64bit) have results that show better performances on AMD64s than Intel HTs-some points to consider while working on resource hungry applications.
My opinion: Intel- Work/Soft.Development.
AMD64- Entertainment/Multimedia.
visit this webpage read a few reviews on Processors- www.pcstats.com
Posted Tue 05 Jul 05 @ 10:47 am
antileon
clownius: Thanks for you're input on the hardware I've choosen for a system (not only, but mostly) dedicated for a nice VDJ machine.
I just wanted to say in general: you can always debate on the choice between AMD and INTEL. There will always be facts telling the good and the bad between between them.
Please, feel free to post specs on other setup's. It's always interesting.
The reason I choose AMD (and done so over the past years) is the fact that performance per spent $ has often proven to be in the advantage for AMD, in general.
I choosed a faster HD as boot partition containing the OS to slightly improve performance (You can also choose SCSI, but it's more expensive.)
2 x 250 GB, raid, is good for storage, and will last for a long time. It's only function should be storage, thats it.
More RAM, ok. *noted* Better RAM modules, say from Corsair?
Mobo is overkill? I was looking for a suitable board with the good monitoring of heat, fanspeed etc and SLI support /w nForce4 chipset. That looked good in that specific class. Other mobo's didn't have room for 2 x SLI graphics cause of the layout of the mobo...
I wan't to use the computer for video mixing, those are the terms, that's why I choosed 2 x SLI graphics cards. Are they not enough?
A nice big TFT is what I want. I've had a 17" for 2 years now, and I decided to go one step up. Not so many skins supports the max resolution, but what tha heck. :)
I agree with you on the CD/DVD recorder. I was just to choose something. It's good to have 1 for making backup.
Feel free to share your opinion.
I just wanted to say in general: you can always debate on the choice between AMD and INTEL. There will always be facts telling the good and the bad between between them.
Please, feel free to post specs on other setup's. It's always interesting.
The reason I choose AMD (and done so over the past years) is the fact that performance per spent $ has often proven to be in the advantage for AMD, in general.
I choosed a faster HD as boot partition containing the OS to slightly improve performance (You can also choose SCSI, but it's more expensive.)
2 x 250 GB, raid, is good for storage, and will last for a long time. It's only function should be storage, thats it.
More RAM, ok. *noted* Better RAM modules, say from Corsair?
Mobo is overkill? I was looking for a suitable board with the good monitoring of heat, fanspeed etc and SLI support /w nForce4 chipset. That looked good in that specific class. Other mobo's didn't have room for 2 x SLI graphics cause of the layout of the mobo...
I wan't to use the computer for video mixing, those are the terms, that's why I choosed 2 x SLI graphics cards. Are they not enough?
A nice big TFT is what I want. I've had a 17" for 2 years now, and I decided to go one step up. Not so many skins supports the max resolution, but what tha heck. :)
I agree with you on the CD/DVD recorder. I was just to choose something. It's good to have 1 for making backup.
Feel free to share your opinion.
Posted Tue 05 Jul 05 @ 1:08 pm
acw_dj
Djaditya I view the sites you wrote. The options are comparing a new stuff to an old stuff, the new stuff is going to win clearly (it's new!). There's people than even known that Intel needs a proper cpu case to install. People who doesn't now about dual channel an Hypertreading...
AMD is better with his HyperTransport technology. This tech speed up the bus with the computer devices (such hard disk, video card) and have a separate bus for memory i/o. Intel speed up in HT and dual core, and other stuff, but it depends on the application we're running.
Right now if you tests your AMD 64 in 32 bits applications (or with a sandra software or other test programs) it maybe slower than it runs in 32bits cpu like normal Athlon.
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1665
I think if I'm going to compare the top CPU of AMD the other must be the top of Intel. And even AMD don't do that for compare their products, that's why I don't beleive all that AMD tells about. And Intel compare with Intel only, so...
If you're budget is limited, go for AMD, if not, go for Intel (with an Intel motherboard!).
If you want to bust your system, go for the top memory velocity (DDR 400 or DDR2 667) your system can support (with 1GB or 2GB, don't you think?). Change for a raid 5+0 with 4 SATA harddisk, it really improved the performance and your data will allways there. Check allways the overclock settings, in some AMD CPU with overclocking the appplications go slower that without it.
Use a PCI Express Video Card, this tech has speed up 8 times than the fastest AGP 8x card. Nvidia GE 7800 or the ATI X850 are nicest options.
AMD is better with his HyperTransport technology. This tech speed up the bus with the computer devices (such hard disk, video card) and have a separate bus for memory i/o. Intel speed up in HT and dual core, and other stuff, but it depends on the application we're running.
Right now if you tests your AMD 64 in 32 bits applications (or with a sandra software or other test programs) it maybe slower than it runs in 32bits cpu like normal Athlon.
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1665
I think if I'm going to compare the top CPU of AMD the other must be the top of Intel. And even AMD don't do that for compare their products, that's why I don't beleive all that AMD tells about. And Intel compare with Intel only, so...
If you're budget is limited, go for AMD, if not, go for Intel (with an Intel motherboard!).
If you want to bust your system, go for the top memory velocity (DDR 400 or DDR2 667) your system can support (with 1GB or 2GB, don't you think?). Change for a raid 5+0 with 4 SATA harddisk, it really improved the performance and your data will allways there. Check allways the overclock settings, in some AMD CPU with overclocking the appplications go slower that without it.
Use a PCI Express Video Card, this tech has speed up 8 times than the fastest AGP 8x card. Nvidia GE 7800 or the ATI X850 are nicest options.
Posted Tue 05 Jul 05 @ 5:19 pm
DJ Cyder
After reading this
I don't ever want to buy a intel cpu ever again.
I don't ever want to buy a intel cpu ever again.
Posted Tue 05 Jul 05 @ 7:37 pm
antileon
I've read that on tomshardware aswell. :)
I'm convinced aswell.
I'm convinced aswell.
Posted Wed 06 Jul 05 @ 5:04 pm
acw_dj
Cyder, thanks. That's the kind of information that I was looking for. AMD is clearly the best when using a single application and can save us a few buck at the end of the year because the power consumption. Intel is better if use several applications running in your system.
I use my computer must of the time with several open applications (outlook, excel, netscape, explorer, tv, msn, av, and vdj) in that case Intel, with an intel motherboard is my option at office. But If I only use VDJ or an application at a time (like my working VDJ machine for gigs) AMD is the chip to use. I will check this as soon as I can.
Dual-Core an Hypertreading is the fastest way to do things. In that case AMD is slower.
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050603/stresstest-05.html
I use my computer must of the time with several open applications (outlook, excel, netscape, explorer, tv, msn, av, and vdj) in that case Intel, with an intel motherboard is my option at office. But If I only use VDJ or an application at a time (like my working VDJ machine for gigs) AMD is the chip to use. I will check this as soon as I can.
Dual-Core an Hypertreading is the fastest way to do things. In that case AMD is slower.
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050603/stresstest-05.html
Posted Wed 06 Jul 05 @ 9:52 pm
acw_dj
It's a preference. If you go for AMD or Intel only be sure of what are you going to get. And tune it the best they can be to get the must of the system you got.
Posted Wed 06 Jul 05 @ 10:15 pm
clownius
told ya :P
pends on what you want....
and 2gb of ram or more, the difference would be minimal also id say....speculated....
then again more ram might not always mean more power too...
this thread is cool
pends on what you want....
and 2gb of ram or more, the difference would be minimal also id say....speculated....
then again more ram might not always mean more power too...
this thread is cool
Posted Thu 07 Jul 05 @ 12:52 am
djaditya
K, Time to change the topic.
Im now confused about monitors.
Should i go for a flat panel LCD or a regular (or flat) CRT? (Space is not a factor)
As, i researched that for gaming and multimedia, a CRT is better becos of variable screen resolutions and better refresh rates (or something like that), also, the viewing angle is much wider in a CRT.
So, cast your votes people: TFT or CRT? Which one would you choose if you played games as well as used VDJ.
Im now confused about monitors.
Should i go for a flat panel LCD or a regular (or flat) CRT? (Space is not a factor)
As, i researched that for gaming and multimedia, a CRT is better becos of variable screen resolutions and better refresh rates (or something like that), also, the viewing angle is much wider in a CRT.
So, cast your votes people: TFT or CRT? Which one would you choose if you played games as well as used VDJ.
Posted Thu 07 Jul 05 @ 5:17 am
DJ Cyder
please start another thread :)
Posted Thu 07 Jul 05 @ 5:41 am