The 3.0 GHz question: AMD or Intel?

Here’s a hardware question for the hardware board:

Given everything else being equal, and cost not being an object, would you pick an AMD or an Intel based system?

I’m leaning towards the Intel box, if only 'cuz the term “HyperThreading” sounds like it’s real kewl.

Hyperthreading is cool (essentially it similuates having two CPUs) and in pretty much every benchmark the P4 wins. I am sure Case will be by shortly to break down Hyperthreading in it’s entirety so watch this space for more information.

– Xaroc

AMD ATHLON XP 3000 “Barton” 400MHz FSB PROCESSOR CPU- OEM: $269
A7N8X Deluxe (new Barton 400 version): $94.99

Intel Pentium 4 / 3.0CGHz 512k socket 478 Hyper Threading Technology 800 MHz FSB - OEM: $383
D875PBZLK OEM: $149

Total cost AMD: $363.99
Total cost Pentium: $532.00

It wouldn’t even be much of a contest for me. YMMV.

Compare based on equivalent price, not equivalent clock speed; Intel has a much bigger markup for their newest stuff.

I was comparing based on the two options listed in the poll. Given those options, I’d go with AMD.

You didn’t have the “Wait until after September 23rd” choice.

:wink:

I’d go with AMD for now, simply because I believe in supporting the alternative. I remember the days of $600 Intel processors all-too-clearly.

Is that when AMD launches the Clawhammer?

Case wrote:
You didn’t have the “Wait until after September 23rd” choice.

Is that when AMD launches the Clawhammer?

Nah, that’s when the hitherto unnoticed asteroid slams into Earth and we all get bonked back to the Commodore 64 age.

I think AMD makes fantastic products and I am very glad they are in the business, as the fact that there is high-end processor competition certainly makes them affordable to us, the masses.

That being said, I’ve not once had a clean AMD install. There’s always something wrong, whether it needs cards reseated or playing with the cables or what have you - I’ve never been able to get an Athlon working first try. It takes several hours for me to get the damn things running, and then they sometimes require similar gerrymandering if i do so much as change a video card.

The P4s, however, always seem to work. Always.

That’s why I’d have to go with the P4.

Guys… I see most of you missed the “cost not being an object” part.

I basically have my pick of two Alienware machines coming into the office. I want to be sure I take the better gaming rig of the two.

My last three machines were AMD, because of the price:performance ratio. But now, money is now object.

So, still leaning to AMD?

Yeah, AMDs are notorious for knocking your cables loose.

You know he’s not going to tell you!

Well, my brain says P4, but my heart screams Athlon :)

Still AMD. It performs better in most tests.

FS Athlon XP 3000 review, with P4 3.0 comparisons.

Oh. :D

AMD looks better on benchmarks, but the “feel” of HT when you’re running a bunch of things is just wonderful.

Is that when AMD launches the Clawhammer?[/quote]

Yes, that’s what AMD has said.

I have an Athlon XP rig and a P4 3.06 rig.

Last year I would have said “Athlon.” This year, I’d spend the extra on a P4. (Wait, I did!) The Athlon was more or less equivalent last year. But Hyperthreading makes an amazing difference in how your machine “feels.” It’s much more responsive.

If you’re a “one task at a time person,” then by all means go Athlon XP. If you’re like me – running two monitors, generally have a pile of web browsers, a word processor, my email app, and perhaps a background video render going all at once – the Hyperthreading P4 is well worth the extra cash.

I’m using an Athlon XP for my “digital video recorder/file server” rig. But for my day to day computing, the P4 wins hands down.

Still AMD. It performs better in most tests.

FS Athlon XP 3000 review, with P4 3.0 comparisons.[/quote]
Awesome linkage, Jakub. Thanks! Looks like I might stick with AMD then…

Plus you can remove one of the 5.25" drive bay covers and use the AMD system like an Easy-Bake Oven!

I’d have you pay me what you’d pay Alienware, and I’d build a computer that would do everything but make coffee for you. If you wanna throw in $500 extra, perhaps that can be arranged.

Seriously though, ask what this system is being used for. Unless you’re running Maya on it, an AMD proc is going to give you similar performance in most apps, slightly worse in others, slightly better in some, and it’ll save you several hundred dollars, which can be put towards more features.

I personally use Photoshop and Illustrator, which happen to run slightly faster on Pentiums. On top of that, I save an assload going through AMD. So that’s my personal preference. If you’re a hard-core gamer, with some change in your pocket to swing around, go the P4 route, because I’m quite sure those tend to bench better in gaming/media-encoding.