AMD or Intel Still?

[Mark G.]

I have been long thinking of upgrading. Currently running ASUS CUV4X-E PIII
800 with 768mb of ram, but feel the time is coming to make a change. I have
been a long time fan of ASUS and Intel, but am looking closer at AMD's. A
lot because of price, but am also hearing a lot of good things. The board in
particular is the ASUS A7N8X-E Deluxe. But I am still considering Intel's as
well. Am really unsure what to do. as I do not want to spend what it will
cost me to get what I want on the Intel side. Almost $600 versus a little
over $300 for AMD. Have heard some say Intel is good all around and that AMD
is only good for games. I play a lot of games, use CAD and graphics
programs, and also do some surfing, programming and other things. So can
some of you give me some insight. Would I be happy with AMD? What are the
downfalls of each? Just any good all around advice would be nice. Thanks in
advance.

 

[Kylesb]

I have 2 of the dlx boards, absolutely no complaints, both run solid
as a rock. Lots of cheapie CPU alternatives also, like the Duron 1600
or 1800 that will OC out of the box from 133 to 166 fsb. So my Duron
1600 runs at 2000, not bad for a $43 CPU. Frankly, I can't tell much
difference between the Duron at 2000 MHz and my XP cpu at 2160 MHz
(which is actually a Duron 1600 with the cache mod, one of the older
durons that could be easily mod'ed to enable all the onboard cache).
I read very good things about the XP mobile chip being very easily
overclocked, e.g., the XP 2500 mobile has run at 2500 MHz for many,
and these are Barton core, 512k onboard cache CPUs.

I like a bargain, both of my a7n8x-dlx mobos are refurb boards (cost
about $60 from newegg) coupled with a cheap CPU (Duron 1600 or 1800)
and for $100 or so you got a real bargain upgrade with very decent
performance.

--
Best regards,
Kyle
| I have been long thinking of upgrading. Currently running ASUS
CUV4X-E PIII
| 800 with 768mb of ram, but feel the time is coming to make a change.
I have
| been a long time fan of ASUS and Intel, but am looking closer at
AMD's. A
| lot because of price, but am also hearing a lot of good things. The
board in
| particular is the ASUS A7N8X-E Deluxe. But I am still considering
Intel's as
| well. Am really unsure what to do. as I do not want to spend what it
will
| cost me to get what I want on the Intel side. Almost $600 versus a
little
| over $300 for AMD. Have heard some say Intel is good all around and
that AMD
| is only good for games. I play a lot of games, use CAD and graphics
| programs, and also do some surfing, programming and other things. So
can
| some of you give me some insight. Would I be happy with AMD? What
are the
| downfalls of each? Just any good all around advice would be nice.
Thanks in
| advance.
|
|

 

[Ben Pope]

I have been long thinking of upgrading. Currently running ASUS CUV4X-E
PIII 800 with 768mb of ram, but feel the time is coming to make a change.
I have been a long time fan of ASUS and Intel, but am looking closer at
AMD's. A lot because of price, but am also hearing a lot of good things.
The board in particular is the ASUS A7N8X-E Deluxe. But I am still
considering Intel's as well. Am really unsure what to do. as I do not
want to spend what it will cost me to get what I want on the Intel side.
Almost $600 versus a little over $300 for AMD. Have heard some say Intel
is good all around and that AMD is only good for games. I play a lot of
games, use CAD and graphics programs, and also do some surfing,
programming and other things. So can some of you give me some insight.
Would I be happy with AMD? What are the downfalls of each? Just any good
all around advice would be nice. Thanks in advance.

Bang for buck, it's AMD. Has been for a while, certainly since the XPs came
out.

The only thing Intel can beat AMD on (in terms of price/performance) is
something like Video Encoding.

I think you will be happy with AMD on the A7N8X-E Deluxe.

Intel motherboards tend to be more expensive, 'cos there isn't really any
competition in the chipset market.

Ben

 

[Roy Coorne]

I have been long thinking of upgrading. Currently running ASUS CUV4X-E PIII
800 with 768mb of ram, but feel the time is coming to make a change. I have
been a long time fan of ASUS and Intel, but am looking closer at AMD's. A
lot because of price, but am also hearing a lot of good things. The board in
particular is the ASUS A7N8X-E Deluxe. But I am still considering Intel's as
well. Am really unsure what to do. as I do not want to spend what it will
cost me to get what I want on the Intel side. Almost $600 versus a little
over $300 for AMD. Have heard some say Intel is good all around and that AMD
is only good for games. I play a lot of games, use CAD and graphics
programs, and also do some surfing, programming and other things. So can
some of you give me some insight. Would I be happy with AMD? What are the
downfalls of each? Just any good all around advice would be nice. Thanks in
advance.

Have you taken an Athlon 64 3000+ into consideration? It has the Cool
'N Quiet technology and opens the door to the 64 Bit world (WinXP for
64 Bit is available as a Beta...).
Mainboard could be an Asus K8V.

Roy

 

[singha_lvr]

The only thing Intel can beat AMD on (in terms of price/performance) is
something like Video Encoding.

.... and even there the gains are so small that it's not worth the
price premium for the Intel ...

 

[Leythos]

I have been long thinking of upgrading. Currently running ASUS CUV4X-E PIII
800 with 768mb of ram, but feel the time is coming to make a change. I have
been a long time fan of ASUS and Intel, but am looking closer at AMD's. A
lot because of price, but am also hearing a lot of good things. The board in
particular is the ASUS A7N8X-E Deluxe. But I am still considering Intel's as
well. Am really unsure what to do. as I do not want to spend what it will
cost me to get what I want on the Intel side. Almost $600 versus a little
over $300 for AMD. Have heard some say Intel is good all around and that AMD
is only good for games. I play a lot of games, use CAD and graphics
programs, and also do some surfing, programming and other things. So can
some of you give me some insight. Would I be happy with AMD? What are the
downfalls of each? Just any good all around advice would be nice. Thanks in
advance.

If you are doing CAD (AutoCAD) get a AUSU PC-DL Deluxe board with one or
two XEON CPU's. Make suer that you have XP Professional in order to take
full advantage of the Hyper-Threading feature on the CPU's.

When it comes to Intel/AMD, I pick Intel for business systems "BECAUSE"
I know I can trust the chipsets (not the CPU's) that are provided with
them. When it comes to needing a cheap system, I get an AMD, but I don't
use the VIA chipsets for AMD.

The XEON, on XP, especially with Dual Xeon's, will scream on games and
CAD. Once you try a Dual CPU system you'll never want to go back to a
single CPU system.

 

[Lil' Dave]

XP_HM will do hyperthreading. It will not do any SMP.

 

[BigBadger]

--
*****Replace 'NOSPAM' with 'btinternet' in the reply address*****

The XEON, on XP, especially with Dual Xeon's, will scream on games and
CAD. Once you try a Dual CPU system you'll never want to go back to a
single CPU system.

I was under the impression that very few games support multi
processor...even the ones that do are more influenced more by gfx card than
by how many cpus in the system.
If you wanted a gaming machine best get a single cpu rig and spend the money
saved on better gfx.

Same goes to a large extent for CAD work...gfx is just as, if not more,
important.

If your budget is unlimited then fine, go dual.

 

[Jussi]

If you have the money for dual Xeon, go instead for dual Opteron.
Due to it's HyperTransport technology it's better suited to multi-cpu
configurations and scales better.
Intel has an small edge on 3dsmax, but in most others (incl. AutoCAD AUGI
Gauge) Opteron beats the sh*t out of Xeon.

See http://www.extremetech.com for details.

I administer two architectural offices (60+ heads), and since 2000 it has
only been AMD boxes. Recommended.

Jussi

 

[Leythos]

You need to fix your method of posting - inserting the two "--"
characters means that nothing below them will be posted in a
REPLY/Quote.

 

[Leythos]

I was under the impression that very few games support multi
processor...even the ones that do are more influenced more by gfx card
than by how many cpus in the system.
If you wanted a gaming machine best get a single cpu rig and spend
the money saved on better gfx.

Same goes to a large extent for CAD work...gfx is just as, if not more,
important.

If your budget is unlimited then fine, go dual.

Dual CPU's do a lot for any application. Take and example of a single
CPU system - the system does a lot of things in the background, not just
a simple game or a single instance of some app, there's a ton of
processing going on all the time when a PC is running.

With a DUAP CPU system the single app is not hindered by the (in
general) extra processing that goes on to support the rest of the
system. There are no quirky pauses as the system time slices between the
applications, etc...

I play Counter-Strike on a Dual CPU system and notice the difference
when playing on a single CPU system.

CAD work is not just graphics, it's about computing angles and such and
most of that takes place in the CPU on the motherboard, not in the CPU
on the graphics card. Sure, sharing/rendering has a lot of Video
performance issues, and benefits greatly from a fast video card, but
I've seen more time spent on the CPU side than the video side.

If you get a Dual you will benefit from it all the time, not just with a
SMP aware application.

 

[Leythos]

If you have the money for dual Xeon, go instead for dual Opteron.
Due to it's HyperTransport technology it's better suited to multi-cpu
configurations and scales better.
Intel has an small edge on 3dsmax, but in most others (incl. AutoCAD AUGI
Gauge) Opteron beats the sh*t out of Xeon.

See http://www.extremetech.com for details.

Link does not show anything related to this discussion, it only points
to the main site.

I administer two architectural offices (60+ heads), and since 2000 it has
only been AMD boxes. Recommended.

I administer more than 500 systems across the country and have found
that, in general, the AMD systems require more maintenance than the non-
AMD systems - in most cases the only difference is the motherboard and
CPU in those systems (meaning that the Video/Network/other is the same).
It boils down to the stability of the CPU+Chipset, not just the CPU.

You should also know that unless you are running Windows 2003 that you
can't get the full benefit of the XEON and HT performance. XP Prof does
have a nice level of performance for the XEON, but 2003 better supports
it.

While 2000 supports HT, it doesn't not make good use of it. In my
experience with Dual and Quad CPU systems (2000 server) there was little
benefit in using HT on 2000. Moving the OS to 2003 showed a dramatic
increase on those same systems.

I'll keep using DUAL XEON systems for CAD and Engineering stations until
I start seeing Dual and Quad AMD CPU systems "common" in the business
offices and server rooms.

 

[BigBadger]

Dual CPU's do a lot for any application. Take and example of a single
CPU system - the system does a lot of things in the background, not just
a simple game or a single instance of some app, there's a ton of
processing going on all the time when a PC is running.

With a DUAP CPU system the single app is not hindered by the (in
general) extra processing that goes on to support the rest of the
system. There are no quirky pauses as the system time slices between the
applications, etc...

I play Counter-Strike on a Dual CPU system and notice the difference
when playing on a single CPU system.

CAD work is not just graphics, it's about computing angles and such and
most of that takes place in the CPU on the motherboard, not in the CPU
on the graphics card. Sure, sharing/rendering has a lot of Video
performance issues, and benefits greatly from a fast video card, but
I've seen more time spent on the CPU side than the video side.

If you get a Dual you will benefit from it all the time, not just with a
SMP aware application.

While Dual and Quad systems do no doubt have an advantage I still believe
that for a buyer on a budget (even a pretty big one) there are other areas
of the system that would yield greater benefit, in most apps, from having
the cash spent on them. For instance with the cost saved by going single CPU
you could easily go to a faster CPU, more memory AND go from a budget (say
FX5200) to a top of the range (say FX5950) gfx card. No doubt there are some
applications where the dual CPU system really shine but as for the argument
about the CPU doing lots of background work..I'm monitoring it now and the
load rarely goes over 4% on my single Athlon rig.

Having said all of that if I had deep enough pockets I'd go dual too!

 

[Leythos]

Having said all of that if I had deep enough pockets I'd go dual too!

The nice thing is that ASUS makes the PC-DL board which is only about
$240, and a 2.4g XEON is only about $240, it uses standard RAM and has
the capacity for 6 drives without any needed cards.

I've started using this as out standard middle tier workstation and with
Dual 250GB SATA drives mirrored and 4GB of RAM, I use them as small web
servers too.

 

[Nom]

I have been long thinking of upgrading. Currently running ASUS
CUV4X-E PIII 800 with 768mb of ram, but feel the time is coming to
make a change. I have been a long time fan of ASUS and Intel, but am
looking closer at AMD's. A lot because of price, but am also hearing
a lot of good things. The board in particular is the ASUS A7N8X-E
Deluxe. But I am still considering Intel's as well. Am really unsure
what to do. as I do not want to spend what it will cost me to get
what I want on the Intel side. Almost $600 versus a little over $300
for AMD. Have heard some say Intel is good all around and that AMD is
only good for games. I play a lot of games, use CAD and graphics
programs, and also do some surfing, programming and other things. So
can some of you give me some insight. Would I be happy with AMD?

Yep.

I tinker with both on a daily basis at work, and there's nothing between
them these days.

Except the average Intel setup costs more cash, and you can get a 64-bit AMD
setup for Intel money. It's a no-brainer really

What
are the downfalls of each?

Intel's only downfall is cost.
The same applies to AMD, but without the cost.

 

[Nom]

When it comes to Intel/AMD, I pick Intel for business systems
"BECAUSE" I know I can trust the chipsets (not the CPU's) that are
provided with them.

Intel's chipsets are no better than the Athlon's AMD/Via/nVidia/SiS
equivalents.

The days of AMD's dodgy budget-chipsets are long gone.

When it comes to needing a cheap system, I get an
AMD, but I don't use the VIA chipsets for AMD.

Good job there's plenty of alternatives then

The XEON, on XP, especially with Dual Xeon's, will scream on games and
CAD.

Except the equivalent Opteron setup, will be both faster AND cheaper !

Once you try a Dual CPU system you'll never want to go back to a
single CPU system.

Agreed.

 

[ugly]

!

Agreed.

I find having a KVM switch is the way to go. When I've got something
busy on one computer, I tap scroll lock twice and I've got another
whole machine to use.

 

[Leythos]

!

I find having a KVM switch is the way to go. When I've got something
busy on one computer, I tap scroll lock twice and I've got another
whole machine to use.

I have 12 servers in my office and use a KVM for all of them, but I'm
not about to switch between computers when a dual CPU system will be
cheaper, provide better use of resources, and takes up less space in my
office

 

[Ed]

I have 12 servers in my office and use a KVM for all of them, but I'm
not about to switch between computers when a dual CPU system will be
cheaper, provide better use of resources, and takes up less space in my
office

--

And no KVM cables either ;p
God how I hate all these wires!!!

Ed