Just bought a digital camera and now i need a PC for home. Whats the verdict on AMD against Intel? CheersDomma.........
i got an 1800 AMD couple of years back, built it all myself, obviously it's moved on a lot, but still goes like f'k on 1 gig photoshop files and hacks the CAD work well
for photoshop and photography stuff pentium 4s are meant to be better. cant remember why. frankly I dont care...
Buy a Mac (Apple). Neither AMD nor Intel. Nice looking, go like stink and last for ages. A bit more money though, but worth it in the long run. An eMac is only 600 I think.
Pentium 4s are ok but AMD gets you better performance for the money. Pentiums 4s were the first to be optimised for windows XP. But now AMD have the Athlon XP which are also optimised for windows XP. Can't see why P4s are better for Photoshop since Photoshop will not use the hardware directly but will use the services provided by the operating system. So it would come down to whether the processor is optimised for the operating system used.
Athlon XP are the boys at the mo, we've had a 1700 for about 2 1/2 years, still goes like hot snot IM m8y
You forgot to mention that it's almost impossible to have any fun on them, as they're predominantly work machines. AMD work out cheaper... Intel myself. Tom
Can AMD opterons be used for home PCs? We've got about 30 of them just sitting in a draw at my work!!
True, AMD are cheaper, but AMD's AND Intels latest processors retail at the same price. AMD's is a 64 bit monster with 1MB cache though, but then Intels chip has an 800MHz data bus and Intel reliability. Also, the name of AMD's chips are misleading, e.g: AMD's new chip is called the Athlon 64 3400+, which you'd think means it runs at 3.4 Gigahertz, but in actual fact, its only got a clock speed of 2.2GHz. Intels bad-boy is a REAL 3.4 Gigaherts. Intel all the way. Nah. Now give me a minute to get my geek-specs off, and my flame suit on. Ta.
AMD. I used to have a really old AMD & it was cack so I went back to Intels for a while. But these days they've sorted their act out & I've had an Athlon XP 2600 for over a year & it's a reet belter. Never have any relyability problems with it & can't fault the performance.
It's not just down to clock speed. There is also the number of clock cycles it takes to process a command. Probably find that Intel's procesor takes more clock cycles to do a given procedure than the AMD, hence why AMDs 3.4Ghz only runs at 2.2Ghz. AMD used to specify their clock speeds as the equivalent intel clock speed. For example, an Athlon XP2400+ only runs at 2Ghz but to get similar performance from a P4 it would need to run at 2.4Ghz. I'm not going to go into the technical rubbish why this is the case cause I don't want to appear to be a nerd
