AMD/INTEL Arguiment...help. (1 Viewer)

[Roman]

To those of you who really can help...

i wanna buy a new computer,and i found myself in sort of an anarguiment about AMD/INTEL,i didn't really care,i have Intel pentium 2 now,,but now i'm starting to care....


i heard that in 2 years all the technology will work on the 64 bit system no 32 anymore,and all of the applications and games will be biuld for the 64-bit ones.
there will be a new windows in a year or two "LONG HORN",that will be specially for the 64-bit and will work super fast...

so the question is,what to buy,stick with the Intel pentium 4,it will be good for at least 4-5 years...will it?

or buy an AMD ATHLON 64?who is supposedly faster,64-bit technology and it will fit the future...

so what you have to say guys?

I appriciate it,
thnx alot.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[The Arif]

From what I heard, AMD Athlon's are not that good, so I'd suggest you to stick with Inter Pentium 4.

 

[Martin]

Roman, don't believe the hype. 64bit processors are *not* inherently faster than the 32bit model. I won't bother with technicalities but just as long as you know that 64 does not equal 32 x 2 and thus "twice as fast", that's all hype.

There's no real reason to get a 64bit processor right now and it won't hurt you one bit to go with a cheaper 32bit be it from Intel or AMD.

 

[swag]

The only good reason I know now to get a 64-bit machine is if you expect to load it with more than 2Gb RAM. Unless you're running a pretty high-performance server, I wouldn't sweat it.

That said, Intel thrives on advertising campaigns designed to convince you and me that they do not produce commodity products where the competitors are really just as good. But because of that uncertainty and doubt their campaigns create, they get to charge a premium. Think iPod.

 

[Alucard Belmont]

++ [ originally posted by Arif ] ++
From what I heard, AMD Athlon's are not that good, so I'd suggest you to stick with Inter Pentium 4.

very informative..

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

havent you heard ? amd is made in sweatshops by kids in africa

 

[Trezeguet_FC]

If you're planning on building a decent computer that will last you get an AMD 64bit. They are the best processers on the market. The Pentium ht processors are pretty good too, but a little too pricey

As a matter of fact, I'd wait until the 2nd generation or even 3rd generation of 64 bit chips to come out before I buy one.

But every year you can wait for a new stuff to come out (since newer stuff always does come out) so just buy it and forget about its longetivity. If you want to always have the best and buy the best, you'd be investing excessive money in your computer every month or so. If I were to build myself a computer this winter, I'd get an AMD 64bit 3200+ (or faster ) With a nice ASUS mobo and two SATA WD Rapture harddrives

 

[Martin]

++ [ originally posted by swag ] ++
The only good reason I know now to get a 64-bit machine is if you expect to load it with more than 2Gb RAM. Unless you're running a pretty high-performance server, I wouldn't sweat it.

Actually, it's 4GB last time I checked. And depending on your OS (Linux) there is such a thing as virtual mapping so you can actually exceed that limitation so long as you don't need to allocate more than 4GB to a single application.

I know 64 sounds like double the speed and I thought that too at first but it doesn't actually do anything. It gives you a far better floating point precision and that's useful in about 2% of the apps a normal home user has. Adding to that, if you run in true 64bit mode you'll only run into problems with binaries because the architecture is still relatively new and on Linux (which is the front runner on x86_64) a lot of things won't compile. I don't know what the case is with Windows but I can't imagine every binary out there suddenly working flawlessly on 64 and thus Windows probably runs on 32bit emulation anyway, which is slightly slower than a true 32bit cpu.

Of course that doesn't mean the AMD64 cpu's aren't fast, they are. But don't get 64 because you think you mean it double your speed.

 

[swag]

The irony is that a lot of the high-performance apps I mess with at work seem to run much faster in 32-bit emulation mode on a 64-bit Opteron than they do at 64-bit.

 

[Martin]

precisely

 

[Roman]

So if you are to buy now,

I am a decent home user,i don't wanna make overclocking or stuff,

just want one good computer,

that will fit me to the next 5 years.

For heavy games,DVD/DVIX movies,Interent,Music and stuff.

So what would you pick?

If i go with the Pentium 4,will i feel comfortble with my comp even after 3years with windows long horn running full time like the XP now,and all the games and stuff are made for the 64-bit...will i?

*i think you got my point,a very good comp for next few years*

Thnx.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

you cant get a computer that its gonna stay "good" for 5 years

 

[Martin]

I would just get a 32bit system, I don't see the point of a 64bit cpu unless you need it and that means stuff like heavy mathematics etc. All the games you have and the vast majority of the games you will play (if not every single one) will still be 32bit and so there's little point in having a 64bit cpu when you run it in 32bit mode anyway. Get a fast, modern 32bit cpu, no reason not to choose AMD still (Athlon XP and Sempron I guess would be most attractive to you). And get enough RAM to be comfortable (512MB should do for some time yet). But for games, perhaps most importantly, get a modern video card. I think that makes the most difference anyway.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

and make sure the system has a lot of upgrade options

 

[Martin]

I'm not too sure about that one myself. These days upgrades don't make that much of a difference, replacing a video card could but a motherboard model sold today won't support the cpu's on the market 3 years from now. So when you update, you'll probably need to replace at least the motherboard and cpu at the same time, most likely the RAM as well, all in one go.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

++ [ originally posted by Martin ] ++
I'm not too sure about that one myself. These days upgrades don't make that much of a difference, replacing a video card could but a motherboard model sold today won't support the cpu's on the market 3 years from now. So when you update, you'll probably need to replace at least the motherboard and cpu at the same time, most likely the RAM as well, all in one go.

true.

 

[Roman]

Btw guys,

for the mother board what you prefer?

Asus or Gigabyte?maybe Abit...?

i mean a really good board,200-230$.

And for the Video card ?

Gefoce or Radeon,and on what board:Nvidia,Asus,Gigabyte,Albatron?


i was thinking about:

motherboard:
Intel:ASUS P5GDC Deluxe 3.6/LGA775 Intelr 915P Motherboard

Amd: Gigabyte GA-K8NSNXP nForce3 250 Motherboard


Video Card:

Gigabyte Geforce FX6600GT PCI-EXPRESS 128 mb Retail

or

Asus Geforce FX 5700 V9570/TD 256MB DDR Retail Video Card

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

man you have too many question.


survey says : stay away from nVidia

 

[Roman]

++ [ originally posted by Don Bes ] ++
man you have too many question.


survey says : stay away from nVidia

Yeah i know,sorry...

you know i just don't wanna buy crap...just wanted to ask what better to buy...

 

[Roman]

Ok...this is the last one guys

Just tell what would take beetwen those 2:

For Internet,Movies,Music,heavy games and stuff....

1:

Intel Pentium IV 3.2 Ghz 1M Cache BOX Prescott 775 CPU
ASUS P5GDC Deluxe 3.6/LGA775 Intelr 915P Motherboard
A-Data 512 MB DDR 3200 Memory*2
Asus Geforce FX 5700 V9570/TD 256MB DDR Retail Video Card


2:

AMD Athlon 64 3200+ (1MB L2 cache) Tray CPU
Gigabyte GA-K8NSNXP nForce3 250 Motherboard
A-Data 512 MB DDR 3200 Memory*2
Gigabyte Geforce FX6600GT PCI-EXPRESS 128 mb Retail

Thnx alot.