AMD or Intel

  • Thread starter Thread starter jobo80
  • Start date Start date
And now to bring it back to life...

I prefer intel to AMD for video work. On the two systems I use, a P4
(2.4 Ghz) and an Athlon XP 2500 I've found that the P4 renders video
noticeably faster. Both machines are stable and I generally only use the AMD
with the exception of doing heavy video rendering.
Of course there are differences in the mb and video card and perhaps
that's a bottleneck for the AMD. However, that's how I see it with what I've
got.
 
should speak for itself
Click to expand...
For what, They both have there advantages/disadvantages. P4, higher
clock speeds and HT. AMD slower speed but better acsess to ram and mor
instructions/clock.

IMO AMD is more for your money(execpt for the dual core they seem pricey)
 
Or would that be a _moot_ question, these days?
Click to expand...

I say it's already mute because for the same relative cpu the noticeable
difference is cost (video encoding is less noticeable between newer cpu
models). Migating factors of choice are m/b, memory and video.

Worse we assume the OP's asking about cpus, not specific cpus, nor about
the 2 company's stock performance or financial statements.
 
I say it's already mute because for the same relative cpu the
noticeable difference is cost (video encoding is less noticeable
between newer cpu models). Migating factors of choice are m/b,
memory and video. Worse we assume the OP's asking about cpus, not
specific cpus, nor about the 2 company's stock performance or
financial statements.
Click to expand...

Still, it's probably moot.
 
i have 350 or so to spend on a processer and i was wondering if i
should go with the athlon X2 3800 or a pentium D
 
jaster said:
I say it's already mute
Click to expand...

The point he was making is that the word for your apparent meaning is
"moot" and not "mute," although your original usage was not entirely clear.

As an adjective (as in your usage):

"Moot" means debatable and a typical dictionary entry often looks like
"Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question."

In legal terms it also means debatable but "of no practical value." For
example, assembling a mock court to 're try' the O.J. Simpson case might be
interesting and educational but it cannot alter the legal matter that is
already decided so, from a legal standpoint, it would be of no practical
(legal) value. It's still debatable, though, and does not mean to imply
there is no (broader) value to the debate but, rather, that there is no
reason for the (real) court to engage in it because it would not serve to
resolve any matter before it.

Colloquial usage, while not really correct, extends the legal version to
the generic meaning "of no significance or relevance," which would seem to
be the meaning you were trying to convey.

A "mute" issue would be one than makes no noise, as my little joke of
whether it really was "mute or just had the volume turned down" implied.
because for the same relative cpu the noticeable
difference is cost (video encoding is less noticeable between newer cpu
models). Migating factors of choice are m/b, memory and video.
Click to expand...

CPU cost is but a fraction of the overall system cost, differential costs
being even smaller, and the value of video encoding speed is subjective.
Which makes the question, well, moot.
 
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:09:07 -0500, David Maynard thoughtfully wrote:

[snip]
As an adjective (as in your usage):

"Moot" means debatable and a typical dictionary entry often looks like
"Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question."
Click to expand...

Duh yeah! It looked funny but I just couldn't see it.
 
when i said 350 i meant $ and i meant in my subject that which is
better AMD or Intel and i meant by should speak for itself as in the
topic should be thought of as the question
 
[email protected] said:
when i said 350 i meant $ and i meant in my subject that which is
better AMD or Intel and i meant by should speak for itself as in
the topic should be thought of as the question
Click to expand...

But English is your second language, right?

Your original post cannot be taken seriously. In order for anyone to
give you a decent answer, you would have to explain what you need
the system for.
 
omg gaming internet school in that order.

im looking for a sub 1200$ desktop and i want it by january i would
like to be able to play all games that are high quality that recently
came out on full settings and i would like my computer to not go out of
date quickly.

i currently am running a 1.2GHz celeron compaq that i cannot deal with
anymore so im looking to upgrade i have never built my own computer
before but in order to save money and get things i want i decided to
try.I have been looking at parts for around 2 months now and a setup
that I thought would work, would be the AMD athlon X2 3800,a NVIDIA
GeForce 6600gt and a 19" moniter from mitsubishi. I was recently
looking at intels when i discovered that for 100 dollars cheaper you
can get a pentium D with a processing frequency of 2.8 GHz while the
3800 runs at 2.0.

now what my question was was with 350$ to spend on a processer would
it be better to go with a cheaper and faster intel and make better
picks for my other parts or would it be better to just go with the AMD
 
I have been looking at parts for around 2 months now and a setup
that I thought would work, would be the AMD athlon X2 3800,a NVIDIA
GeForce 6600gt and a 19" moniter from mitsubishi. I was recently
looking at intels when i discovered that for 100 dollars cheaper you
can get a pentium D with a processing frequency of 2.8 GHz while the
3800 runs at 2.0.

now what my question was was with 350$ to spend on a processer would
it be better to go with a cheaper and faster intel and make better
picks for my other parts or would it be better to just go with the AMD
Click to expand...

So, do a bit of research at amd.com, tomshardware.com, and any other review site
you can find via google, etc. Learn more about the AMD CPUs, the ratings, and
the relative insignificance of clock speed when comparing AMD to Intel.

If you do go AMD, get a Socket 939 board so you can upgrade to a dual-core CPU
when you can afford one.
 
So, do a bit of research at amd.com, tomshardware.com, and any other
review site you can find via google, etc. Learn more about the AMD CPUs,
the ratings, and the relative insignificance of clock speed when comparing
AMD to Intel.

If you do go AMD, get a Socket 939 board so you can upgrade to a dual-core
CPU when you can afford one.
Click to expand...

Yeah what jobo80 said

http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html
 
Back
Top