Which one?

[itsme]

Your opinions please on the following
AMD

http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=112170



http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=124915



INTEL

http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=113951



http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=112706

 

[Me__2001]

think the intel setup is probably better

 

[V_R]

Intel all the way.

 

[muckshifter]

Hmmm, at least I read the manuals ...


There is very little in the tech specs that would make me choose one over the other ... either should work pretty good surfing the net & writing a letter or two.

Sorry to say this, but the real deciding factor is ... what OS will make either system work the way it is supposed to ... not to mention what software you gonna bung on there.

Today, it really does not matter one iota when choosing Intel over AMD ... you picked almost identical cars ... so which will do what you want it to do ... neither of them.

For once, we can actually choose the main components of a system on ... price.

 

[itsme]

Hmmm, at least I read the manuals ...


There is very little in the tech specs that would make me choose one over the other ... either should work pretty good surfing the net & writing a letter or two.

Sorry to say this, but the real deciding factor is ... what OS will make either system work the way it is supposed to ... not to mention what software you gonna bung on there.

Today, it really does not matter one iota when choosing Intel over AMD ... you picked almost identical cars ... so which will do what you want it to do ... neither of them.

For once, we can actually choose the main components of a sysem on ... price.

Now that is some!!! answer I will be sticking with XP and my main aim is "CRUNCHING" for a purpose I don`t play games { only with the misses} The cost does not matter to me

 

[muckshifter]

Well, if you are going to stick to XP then I suggest you use AMD as their 64bit CPUs have built-in instruction set to handle 32 bit software ... correctly.


Despite all the hype from our fellow readers on Intel's gaming performance, the fact still remains that AMD's architecture is superior to Intel's Netburst ...

I can go on and on and on ... there really is no point ... for what people use these dual-core CPUs for, even gamers are caught out, they do not use the full potential of the CPUs.

You just stated the one fact that is your concern ... crunchin.

Again, the two "systems" you chose are almost impossible to rip apart if all you want is a crunchin PC ...


well, you better scrap them two and look again


Money not a concern ?? great, have a look at quad-core.

Be aware, however, there is NO true quads yet on the market ... just because Intel count 2+2=4 ... they are in fact two dual-cores, not one quad-core.

Ball back in your court.





* oh I do like the numbers game *

 

[V_R]

The Intel will clock higher and put out more points for BOINC.

 

[muckshifter]

The Intel will clock higher and put out more points for BOINC.

6,875 points 18 returns
err, what did your Intel do again ???

V_R we can "play" this game all day ... but I can't be bothered anymore.

You win.

 

[itsme]

The Intel will clock higher and put out more points for BOINC.

What will it actually clock up to the 6600 I mean? at the moment I have an AMD 2.4 Athlon running at 2.16 Mhz.

 

[itsme]

Well, if you are going to stick to XP then I suggest you use AMD as their 64bit CPUs have built-in instruction set to handle 32 bit software ... correctly.

That is a point I did not consider Nice one mucks

You just stated the one fact that is your concern ... crunchin.

Yep thats it

 

[V_R]

6,875 points 18 returns
err, what did your Intel do again ???

V_R we can "play" this game all day ... but I can't be bothered anymore.

You win.

Lol, You gotta love the randomness of validation process!

Sorry Mucks i aint trying to play the numbers game with you, my maths aint that good!

But the C2D's do overclock higher than the AMD's, thats the truth.

What will it actually clock up to the 6600 I mean? at the moment I have an AMD 2.4 Athlon running at 2.16 Mhz.

2.16mhz, wow! Your going the wrong way!! You mean 2.16Ghz?

Providing the rest of your set up is good C2D's will hit an easy 3Ghz and beyond witha good after maket cooler (Tuniq, Noctua, Scythe or Zalman etc), some will go as far as 3.7 on air.

At the end of the day its your money you decide.

 

[itsme]

2.16mhz, wow! Your going the wrong way!! You mean 2.16Ghz?

V_R! Your lucky I didn`t put MPH

 

[floppybootstomp]

If you look at the two systems in my sig, the only real difference I notice is that the Intel does actually multi-task more fluidly.

I started off with the Intel setup but the dual core CPU caused problems with my favourite online game, Call Of Duty 2, so I upgraded another machine using a single core AMD chip.

They're both fast, both stable and I love 'em both to bits

Mucks made a good point about the AMD's architecture being able to recognise and deal with 32 bit OS's and V_R made a good point about overclocking.

Are you going to overclock? I do hope it's a better result than getting a 2.4Ghz chip to run at 2.1Mhz



What the hell - toss a coin

PS: I'm actually a bit confused, what CPU is it that's running at 2.1? an XP2400 perhaps? Is there such a thingie? Pray enlighten me

 

[itsme]

If you look at the two systems in my sig, the only real difference I notice is that the Intel does actually multi-task more fluidly.

I started off with the Intel setup but the dual core CPU caused problems with my favourite online game, Call Of Duty 2, so I upgraded another machine using a single core AMD chip.

They're both fast, both stable and I love 'em both to bits

Mucks made a good point about the AMD's archtecture being able to recognise and deal with 32 bit OS's and V_R made a good point about overclocking.

Are you going to overclock? I do hope it's a better result than getting a 2.4Ghz chip to run at 2.1Mhz

What the hell - toss a coin

Yes both good points indeed as for the 32 bit OS I may well go for AMD Intel AMD coin tossed! heads Intel! tails AMD! TAILS

2.4Ghz chip to run at 2.1Mhz

That took some doing let me tell you

Na I won`t overclock I aint working now

 

[itsme]

PS: I'm actually a bit confused, what CPU is it that's running at 2.1? an XP2400 perhaps? Is there such a thingie? Pray enlighten me

AMD Athlon [TM] XP 2400+ {Socket A}

 

[muckshifter]

As always, the goal posts are changed ... now you wanna 'overclock' too ?


Sorry, I ain't an OCer, I ain't a gamer ... I can't help you with that ... I just do a lot of reading.

 

[itsme]

As always, the goal posts are changed ... now you wanna 'overclock' too ?


Sorry, I ain't an OCer, I ain't a gamer ... I can't help you with that ... I just do a lot of reading.

Nope I don`t OCLOCK

 

[michael 118]

You'll be satisfied either way itsme and I say the go with the AMD set up, because... AMD have yet to fail me .

Its a numbers game indeed and won't really matter which way you go in the end.

 

[PotGuy]

With or without overclocks intel always has the edge, but in the real world away from game benchmarks its six of one half a dozen of the other - I voted AMD just because I like them better, and you'll save £50

 

[Adywebb]

Both will do what you want fine, so you might as well go on price, which means AMD wins..............................however I still have a spare E6600 sitting here doing nothing that may swing the price back in Intels favour