Intel or AMD

Member said:

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
TIger has partial 64bit support..it is not native. World of
difference. In fact huge difference.

Click to expand...

Point is, it has 64 bit support like I've been saying all along. Perhaps not natively, but applications like Mathematica can take great advantage of it.

Member said:

Nothing wrong with linux.....

Click to expand...

I never said there was... just that OS X is better.

Member said:

No...but you would tear me to bits if I said i would never build an
intel system....admit it!

Click to expand...

I wouldn't tear you to bits because I couldn't care less. I'm just pushing the fact that Intel is better at the moment with their roadmap. End of.

Member said:

ITs a pile of junk..so you got one..great maybe it wont
break...that is my view feel free not to agree...

If you dont like it..tough...talk to the hand.

Click to expand...

Thats a nice attitude, I'm sure customers of Fitgerald Group would be inspired by the arrogant, incorrect attitude exerted by your attitude.

Member said:

Member said:

In many ways, Photographers need as much power, in not more (at
least in terms of RAM and CPU) as a gamer might.

Click to expand...

Pure dribble. Sorry but it has to be said you are showing yourself
up. A gamer pc is very different to a photo pc...photography doesnt
push a pc half as much as rendering...video encoding....
RAM is important..and to a point cpu....to a point. But not
graphics..which is the main area for a gamer to worry about...

Click to expand...

So you bash what I say as pure dibble then rephrase it your own way. I said, and I quote 'In many ways, Photographers need as much power, in not more (at least in terms of RAM and CPU) as a gamer might.' You said 'RAM is important..and to a point cpu....to a point. But not graphics..which is the main area for a gamer to worry about...' - did I say anything about photographers and gamers sharing the need for graphics power? No, although, if you had any knowledge about PS, LightRoom, Aperture you would know that a decent graphics card is also helpful for great performance.

Member said:

Best value? Get off the horse...........! lol.......what is good
value is the new X2 3600 cpu, that overclocks to the X5000
level...now talk to me about value?

Click to expand...

It is the best value, you just don't want to admit it because of the brand loyalty so close to your heart. I mean not choosing the better product over an inferior one due to the fact that AMD 'might catch up' (pure speculation) is just plain ridiculous.

David
--
Nikon D50 + 18 - 55mm, Fuijfilm F30, Epson R245, Canon CP400
iMac C2D 2.0Ghz, MacBook CD, Powerbook G4, iPod 5.5G 30GB.
http://www.davidjearly.com

david130586 said:

So you bash what I say as pure dibble then rephrase it your own
way. I said, and I quote 'In many ways, Photographers need as much
power, in not more (at least in terms of RAM and CPU) as a gamer
might.' You said 'RAM is important..and to a point cpu....to a
point. But not graphics..which is the main area for a gamer to
worry about...' - did I say anything about photographers and gamers
sharing the need for graphics power? No, although, if you had any
knowledge about PS, LightRoom, Aperture you would know that a
decent graphics card is also helpful for great performance.

Click to expand...

And how exaclty does a £400 gamer card help photoshop? I am all ears...

Photography isnt the death inducing pc killer you talk about..3D studio max is!

dearlyphoto said:

It is the best value, you just don't want to admit it because of
the brand loyalty so close to your heart. I mean not choosing the
better product over an inferior one due to the fact that AMD 'might
catch up' (pure speculation) is just plain ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Not at all..best value is buying a cheap as chips cpu that can run as fast as the top end ones....

Sure intel cpu's overclock nicely....most do....cost wise is the factor.

On the ipod..well you dont have to go far to hear all the complaints about them..by far the worst is the battery problem...

I wouldnt even mind if they sounded good!

dearlyphoto said:

David
--
Nikon D50 + 18 - 55mm, Fuijfilm F30, Epson R245, Canon CP400
iMac C2D 2.0Ghz, MacBook CD, Powerbook G4, iPod 5.5G 30GB.
http://www.davidjearly.com

Click to expand...

--

JoePhoto said:

BUT .... the only reason Intel may be temporarily ahead is because
of COMPETITION from AMD.

Support AMD and KEEP the COMPETITION alive.

Click to expand...

you really seem to have some issues that i would look into ...

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

Here's a little known tid bit: A cousin of mine woks as a network technician for a major airport. This unnamed airport (with approx. 7 others) has a computer controlled emergency landing system consisting of back-up system after back-up system etc. This system will automatically land the planes due to weather issues, other emergencies , pilot inability etc. These systems are all AMD and were chosen because of there proven reliability and performance. Safety was a primary concern and not cost which unfortunately is a factor for us consumers. So, if some of the most qualified persons evaluated and decided on AMD , its good enough for me. Also I fully agree that intel would still be gouging us if they could get away with it!!! Trust issues.lol
W.

PalmsWestPhoto said:

PalmsWestPhoto said:

PalmsWestPhoto said:

PalmsWestPhoto said:

PalmsWestPhoto said:

you really seem to have some issues that i would look into ...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You argue like an Apple user.

A few posts above you said:

PalmsWestPhoto said:

PalmsWestPhoto said:

PalmsWestPhoto said:

PalmsWestPhoto said:

PalmsWestPhoto said:

PalmsWestPhoto said:

Currently intel is far ahead of AMD. Much more than AMD was ahead of intel before. I dont care either way so i dont have any bias. I buy whatever makes sense at that time and it is also the business i am in as well

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Boy, that's news to me. For the past couple of years I've been deploying custom dual Core AMD servers that cost 1/2 the price of their Intel Netburst counterparts, have a minimum 40% across the board improved performance, and consume half the power. I'm not sure where that falls on your price/performance curve, but no WAY is the Core 2 Duo beating up the X2 like AMD has been spanking Netburst.

The guy is right. The only reason we're seeing the Core 2 Duo this decade is because of AMD. Otherwise, the tards in Intel's netburst division would still be pushing that architecture down our throats.

Scott Eaton said:

Scott Eaton said:

Scott Eaton said:

Scott Eaton said:

Scott Eaton said:

Scott Eaton said:

you really seem to have some issues that i would look into ...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You argue like an Apple user.

A few posts above you said:

Scott Eaton said:

Scott Eaton said:

Scott Eaton said:

Scott Eaton said:

Scott Eaton said:

Scott Eaton said:

Currently intel is far ahead of AMD. Much more than AMD was ahead of intel before. I dont care either way so i dont have any bias. I buy whatever makes sense at that time and it is also the business i am in as well

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Boy, that's news to me. For the past couple of years I've been
deploying custom dual Core AMD servers that cost 1/2 the price of
their Intel Netburst counterparts, have a minimum 40% across the
board improved performance, and consume half the power. I'm not
sure where that falls on your price/performance curve, but no WAY
is the Core 2 Duo beating up the X2 like AMD has been spanking
Netburst.

The guy is right. The only reason we're seeing the Core 2 Duo this
decade is because of AMD. Otherwise, the tards in Intel's netburst
division would still be pushing that architecture down our throats.

Click to expand...

You argue like an AMD fanboy. Is there anyone present on this forum who can give a non-bias, non-speculative opinion?

We aren't talking about server chips here, we are talking desktop/notebook chips.

Like it or not, Intel is ahead at the moment with C2D. It really is as simple as that.

And just out of interest, what does 'an Apple user' argue like? Do I argue like one too?

David
--
Nikon D50 + 18 - 55mm, Fuijfilm F30, Epson R245, Canon CP400
iMac C2D 2.0Ghz, MacBook CD, Powerbook G4, iPod 5.5G 30GB.
http://www.davidjearly.com

Without Intel, AMD would have been gouging billions of dollars from consumers when they had the best processors. Now Intel has the best processors, but without AMD, they would gouge billions of dollars from consumers. Surprisingly, those who claim to be expert in computer building do not have a basic concept of economics. Get out and learn. AMD is not a charity organization, they just want to make as much money as they can. If they don't, the investor will dump them like they do recently when the profit is going down. A technician at the airport that uses AMD doesn't mean anything. If you really want to make the point, you need to provide data that a similar system using Intel would cause airplanes to crash. Be smart and unbiased. To the fanboys of both sides, I am willing to take any Intel or AMD systems that you guys hate so much.

CN

wolf55 said:

Here's a little known tid bit: A cousin of mine woks as a network
technician for a major airport. This unnamed airport (with approx.
7 others) has a computer controlled emergency landing system
consisting of back-up system after back-up system etc. This system
will automatically land the planes due to weather issues, other
emergencies , pilot inability etc. These systems are all AMD and
were chosen because of there proven reliability and performance.
Safety was a primary concern and not cost which unfortunately is a
factor for us consumers. So, if some of the most qualified persons
evaluated and decided on AMD , its good enough for me. Also I fully
agree that intel would still be gouging us if they could get away
with it!!! Trust issues.lol
W.

Click to expand...

Cau Nguyen said:

To the fanboys of both sides, I am willing to
take any Intel or AMD systems that you guys hate so much.

Click to expand...

I couldn’t agree more.. when a person needs benchmarks to prove a given system or cpu is faster than another, it's almost moot in the real world. If building the fastest PC as measured by a given benchmark is one's hobby, then enjoy the hobby. One thing never attached to any of the benchmark sis how much of a "delta" must exist before one can perceive the difference.

Dual cores, quad cores, yada yada.. over clocking, not over clocking.. bottom line is both sides of the cpu business are making processors which are simply fast. Other system bottlenecks come into play.. and those who really want speed attack it form the hard drive side of the house as well as cpu. In the end, if one were to build 4 systems with identical parts and build 1 with an E6400 CPU, another with a 6600, a third with a 6800, and finally a fifth using an AMD 5200 X2, more than likely the amount of differences noticed by an average end user would be negligible

Without question Intel has produced a great series of CPU's. AMD has been making great cpu's for a while now, and the competition has driven prices down and quality up. I'd be happy using a system with any of the cpu's referenced above. Take your pick and go with it.. in the end, the differences will be less than the similarities, bechmarks aside.

I'm currently using an AMD 5000+ X2 cpu, no over clocking, cpu never goes over 38 degrees C under a load, case doesn’t go over 34 C, Photoshop CS loads in under 7 seconds (non cached, initial load after a fresh boot) and I can open my 20D RAW files in under a second. There are faster cpus on the market and am sure if I wanted to over clock I could take a few tenths of a second off those figures, or if I went with an E6800 I could take a second or 2 off those times. It's just not worth $1000 to me to do so.

The system I built this past summer has 2 Gb of RAM, 1 Raptor 150 Gb hard drive, 2 Seagate 7200.10 series 320 Gb hard drives, ATI FireGl V3400 video card, Coolermaster CM Stacker 810 case, 2 Samsung 18X dvd burners, 7 in 1 media reader w/ floppy, MSI motherboard, Win XP pro, and the AMD 5000+ X2 dual core cpu.. my cost was under $1500 USD for this system.

I could build a similar priced system using the E6300 cpu or maybe the E6400, and I'm guessing performance wise it would be close. It's all good... fast machines for reasonable prices. Plus my box has never crashed, very stable and very quiet, even with 5 fans in the case.

If I were building today I'd take the same approach and would be open to either AMD or Intel.. it would come down to total system price for the performance I want without overclocking. Is great for all of us to have cost effective solutions without worrying about benchmark values which may or may not relate to real world differences!

--
Please forgive the typos! A great speller I am, a great typist I am not!

Cau Nguyen said:

Without Intel, AMD would have been gouging billions of dollars from
consumers when they had the best processors. Now Intel has the
best processors, but without AMD, they would gouge billions of
dollars from consumers. Surprisingly, those who claim to be expert
in computer building do not have a basic concept of economics. Get
out and learn. AMD is not a charity organization, they just want
to make as much money as they can. If they don't, the investor will
dump them like they do recently when the profit is going down. A
technician at the airport that uses AMD doesn't mean anything. If
you really want to make the point, you need to provide data that a
similar system using Intel would cause airplanes to crash. Be
smart and unbiased. To the fanboys of both sides, I am willing to
take any Intel or AMD systems that you guys hate so much.

Click to expand...

I hear your point. And I won't deny that if AMD was the only cpu manufacturer might (probably) gouge us also.

But there are two points to this thread ... first is that we need TWO (active and viable) manufacturers to keep competition alive. So the first point is that Intel makes LOTS of money ... AMD is "hurting" ... so AMD needs our "support" to keep them alive.

And while I didn't deny that AMD might have gouged us if it had the chance .... the FACT is that Intel "DID".

If you look at a time-line chart for CPU's .... you will notice that Intel actually progressed VERY SLOW in the early days, (before Cyrix and AMD).

It took from 1970 (4004) to 1989 to get to 33mhz (albeit 486 DX2 was 33x2). The Pentium 60 came out in 1993 and by 2003 we were over 2ghz. That also coincided with competition from IBM, Cyrix, and AMD.

I don't recall the exact price of CPU's at that time ... but I know that a "computer" sold for between $2000 to $4000; and I assume the CPU was a major part of that.

CN

Cau Nguyen said:

wolf55 said:

Here's a little known tid bit: A cousin of mine woks as a network
technician for a major airport. This unnamed airport (with approx.
7 others) has a computer controlled emergency landing system
consisting of back-up system after back-up system etc. This system
will automatically land the planes due to weather issues, other
emergencies , pilot inability etc. These systems are all AMD and
were chosen because of there proven reliability and performance.
Safety was a primary concern and not cost which unfortunately is a
factor for us consumers. So, if some of the most qualified persons
evaluated and decided on AMD , its good enough for me. Also I fully
agree that intel would still be gouging us if they could get away
with it!!! Trust issues.lol
W.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )

The past is the past. The thread here starts with the question which way to go; AMD or Intel, which is happening RIGHT now. Don't let your emotion cloud your judgement. All companies try to make money. Calll them evils, Yes that's how capitalism works. Buy the best CPU with your earned money. I don't give a damn about AMD or Intel. I buy the best for my money. AMD failed in the past not because Intel or lack of your support but because they didn't know how to design a good processor. They got their act together and made the athlon, which they earn their money. Now Intel get their act together and make a better C2D. If AMD wants support, make a better CPU than C2D, that's life. They don't need your pity to survive, they actually can't survive with your pity. They have to make a better CPU to survive. Don't give your advice based on the irrelevant past. This is pure economics not religion.

CN

JoePhoto said:

But there are two points to this thread ... first is that we need
TWO (active and viable) manufacturers to keep competition alive.
So the first point is that Intel makes LOTS of money ... AMD is
"hurting" ... so AMD needs our "support" to keep them alive.

And while I didn't deny that AMD might have gouged us if it had the
chance .... the FACT is that Intel "DID".

If you look at a time-line chart for CPU's .... you will notice
that Intel actually progressed VERY SLOW in the early days, (before
Cyrix and AMD).

It took from 1970 (4004) to 1989 to get to 33mhz (albeit 486 DX2
was 33x2). The Pentium 60 came out in 1993 and by 2003 we were
over 2ghz. That also coincided with competition from IBM, Cyrix,
and AMD.

I don't recall the exact price of CPU's at that time ... but I know
that a "computer" sold for between $2000 to $4000; and I assume
the CPU was a major part of that.

CN

JoePhoto said:

wolf55 said:

Here's a little known tid bit: A cousin of mine woks as a network
technician for a major airport. This unnamed airport (with approx.
7 others) has a computer controlled emergency landing system
consisting of back-up system after back-up system etc. This system
will automatically land the planes due to weather issues, other
emergencies , pilot inability etc. These systems are all AMD and
were chosen because of there proven reliability and performance.
Safety was a primary concern and not cost which unfortunately is a
factor for us consumers. So, if some of the most qualified persons
evaluated and decided on AMD , its good enough for me. Also I fully
agree that intel would still be gouging us if they could get away
with it!!! Trust issues.lol
W.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )

Click to expand...

WOW, I am quite surprised at the amount of 'Political' responses that my question has raised, being a computer novice i really only started to use a computer when i got into photography i had no idea there was so much feeling about the intel company.

Anyway thank's to all those who actually answered the question i was asking it seems i can safely use either processor for what i am going to use them for and i will base my decision on cost.

Regards to all, Kev.

skutters said:

WOW, I am quite surprised at the amount of 'Political' responses
that my question has raised, being a computer novice i really only
started to use a computer when i got into photography i had no idea
there was so much feeling about the intel company.
Anyway thank's to all those who actually answered the question i
was asking it seems i can safely use either processor for what i am
going to use them for and i will base my decision on cost.

Regards to all, Kev.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct. Either cpu manufacturer makes chips which will more than do what you need and the cost has dropped significantly over the past several months. There are many with strong feelings in both "camps" and they can and usually are very vocal. Unless you are very demanding and have an absolute desire to have the fastest of the fastest ( ie want to overclock, run benchmark after benchmark, etc ), then there won't be a hill of beans difference between the 2, and the same for within the same brand. I've always bought middle of the road in terms of cpus. decided how much I'm willing to psend on just the cpu and motherboard ( if a cpu is cheap but motherboard is not.. well, you get the picture ) and go from there.

If you are buying an already built computer, then none of that is a real concern. In that case, I'd buy at least 2 Gb of Ram, and make sure it has plenty of hard drive space since a 300 Gb drive costs only about $12 more than a 200 Gb drive.

The really good news is no matter what you buy, it's going to be pretty darned fast! It's kind of like buying a TV.. one goes into the store and compares, compares , compares some more, gets confused, starts to worry that another one might be a little bit better, goes to another store, thinks they have changed their minds, compares some more, gets more confused, now is undecided, even squints to beleive they see a difference.... finally, they decide, get their set home and WOW it's gorgeous. They know they made the right choice when in fact it probably would have resulted in the same WOW factor no matter which set they had bought... nothing to compare it against at home. As long as you don't run benchmarks to see a number that tells you how fast your machine is, more than likely you will be a very hapopy digital photographer! Good luck and happy picture taking!
--
Please forgive the typos! A great speller I am, a great typist I am not!

JoePhoto said:

I hear your point. And I won't deny that if AMD was the only cpu
manufacturer might (probably) gouge us also.

But there are two points to this thread ... first is that we need
TWO (active and viable) manufacturers to keep competition alive.
So the first point is that Intel makes LOTS of money ... AMD is
"hurting" ... so AMD needs our "support" to keep them alive.

Click to expand...

This is not really true. Even if there wasn't a second CPU maker Intel would still be producing newer and faster CPU's. Maybe not what we have today but if they didn't I would still be using the system I built 9-10 years ago, why would I need to build another if the CPU's didn't get better and faster, and still have a fairly fast productive computer. Same goes for if AMD was the only CPU maker.

What would that do to the bottom line of a CPU manufacturers quarterly financial reports and to Microsoft earnings if they didn't produce newer CPU's that everyone needed to run the newest software.

JoePhoto said:

And while I didn't deny that AMD might have gouged us if it had the
chance .... the FACT is that Intel "DID".

If you look at a time-line chart for CPU's .... you will notice
that Intel actually progressed VERY SLOW in the early days, (before
Cyrix and AMD).

It took from 1970 (4004) to 1989 to get to 33mhz (albeit 486 DX2
was 33x2). The Pentium 60 came out in 1993 and by 2003 we were
over 2ghz. That also coincided with competition from IBM, Cyrix,
and AMD.

Click to expand...

It might be true that you didn't see the leaps until after other CPU makers cam on the scene but that doesn't prove that it was soley there presence that made Intel improve there technology. The human race used horse to get around for centuries before someone invented the internal combustion engine and put it into a horseless carriage, the CAR. And look what we have done since that, gone to the moon and back.

New advances in technology lead to even newer advances in technology in a reverse domino effect.

JoePhoto said:

I don't recall the exact price of CPU's at that time ... but I know
that a "computer" sold for between $2000 to $4000; and I assume
the CPU was a major part of that.

Click to expand...

Actually the cost of CPU's has not changed in decades. Back in the early days of PC's a CPU went for somewhere in the range of $200 - $600, maybe a little more for the tip top top of the line model, which is what they go for today.

JoePhoto said:

CN

--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )

Click to expand...

Basing you decision only on cost for a CPU is doing a disservice to you. Cost is not the only factor. It is how long will what you build today work for you tomorrow.

skutters said:

WOW, I am quite surprised at the amount of 'Political' responses
that my question has raised, being a computer novice i really only
started to use a computer when i got into photography i had no idea
there was so much feeling about the intel company.
Anyway thank's to all those who actually answered the question i
was asking it seems i can safely use either processor for what i am
going to use them for and i will base my decision on cost.

Regards to all, Kev.

Click to expand...