Hey guys, I'm getting ready to build a system. I'm more familiar with Intel products and mobo's for intel's but, since I will be using this for a lot of gaming too, I think AMD will be the way to go. Am I correct in claiming that AMD's are better at gaming? I will also be using this for digital photos and Photoshop and hopefully some video stuff in the future. Will AMD still serve well in those areas? I'm not nearly as familiar with AMD's and the naming and performance and likewise on the Mobo's. Initially I was looking at putting a system together with a 3.0ghz intel and an SLI mobo and PSU. To get to the same processing speed as this in an AMD, what CPU would you recommend? What MOBO would be a good one? Also for L2 Cache I was looking at the 1MB x 2 with a 800mhz FSB. What would be the AMD equivalent? Is Dual Core worth the money? Any help and recommendations are appreciated. Later
Depends on what you want to spend really. You're right in assuming that AMD are better for gaming. Not only that, the newer Venice and San Diego cores are superior in many other areas not just gaming. Dual core at the moment is expensive, so for general usage and heavy gaming I'd recommend an Athlon 64 3500 venice, or if you want more performance a San Diego 3800. Cache isn't really an issue, the model numbers don't show clockspeed, they show overall performance relative to Intel and other Athlon 64s and take cache into account. But an AMD equivelent of Intel will usually outperform it. AMDs will also have a lower power consumption and thus be easier to cool.
Thanks Addis, this is my first build and have somewhat kept up with technology via websites etc. It seems I've always gravitated to Intel but the 600's seem to run very hot and it seems that the heat sink and fan should be upgraded. Now after trolling around forums and reading reviews I am prolly getting the AMD. I will check out the Venice and will prolly stay away from dual core. I would rather spend money on a VidCard or RAM. I have a lot on my wishlist at Newegg and am getting ready to pull the trigger. What about a Mobo? What are some good boards and brands for an AMD with SLI capability and DDR2 RAM? Also, do I need to pay attention to L2 Cache? Is it really that big of a deal on AMD and what about the FSB speeds? Do they have a 800mhz FSB?
I believe the A64s use a special AMD tech called Hypertransport, which allows very fast communications between the CPU and northbridge. As far as I know, the 3500 venice uses a 1GHz FSB, and uses a 2x multiplier to make an effective 2GHz FSB. Again I'm not all to sure on the multiplier part. Cache isn't really an issue, whats important is the model number which is used to show overall performance. Cache on most A64s is either 512k or 1MB depending on the model.
Excellent. Thanks Addis for the info. I will hit up Newegg tonight and scope out the AMD's and check out some MOBO's. What brands have had solid performance and quality for AMD? I've heard ASUS thrown around a lot and MSI. Thanks for the help.
Look at Abit, Asus and DFI for good Socket 939 motherboards. I use mainly VIA chipsets, but I have heard very good things about the NF4.
I noticed you asked about DDR 2 AMD boards dont suppport DDR 2 ram, but do have dual channel support. Either way AMD processors still have a pretty big lead over intel in performance.
Right now, AMD-based systems don't use DDR2, but in the future, they will, simply because DDR2 can scale to speeds DDR can't. Motherboards: Asus A8N-SLI series --mature motherboard, oldest SLI board series. MSI K8N *4 SLI --second most mature SLI motherboard behind Asus DFI LanParty NF4 SLI-D/SLI-DR (DR has an additional 4 SATA ports for a total of 8)--Overclockers dream boards with tons of tweaks, I run an Ultra-D myself, and am rather pleased with it. Gigabyte nForce 4 SLI---Probably the cheapest option out there, as some of these board are hovering just over $100, which is pretty cheap for a decent SLI board.
Wow, I didn't know AMD mobo's didn't support DDR2. I wonder why they haven't done this yet. Is there word that they will have a DDR2 board soon? Well you can tell I haven't researched AMD mobo's yet considering I didn't know that jewel of info. I was going to read up on them last night but the Orange Bowl ended up being a good game and I got sucked in to it. Well DDR is fine, the RAM is cheaper . Another question though. I've never OC'd and I really don't plan on it. Will a stock AMD with DDR still perform with a similar Intel with DDR2 667mhz? What is your opinion?
DDR2 AMD mobos isn't the problem, the fact is that AMD doesn't see the reason at the moment to switch to DDR2. They are going to, but the higher latencies and higher costs wasn't worth the higher clock speeds. Probably did the right thing actually. DDR2 wouldn't work because AMD CPUs still don't support it, thats the reason. So the motherboards aren't the barrier here. The new AM2 socket CPUs will support DDR2 though, but I think its still some months before they release. To your question on oc, trust us that venice/san diego A64 will obliterate the "equivelent" P4 in gaming and most other applications too. DDR2 doesn't give intel that much of an advantage, as DDR2 also has higher latencies which tend to hurt AMD systems more.
AMD is great at gaming, but Intel prescotts are still better for lots of media stuff, despite what people say. If you are using photoshop for fun, it's probably not a big deal. If you were creating an entire magazine spread, you might care more. Also, Adobe is optimized for p4s, so they will obviously perform better as a result. If you are going to be gaming, just get an AMD. *Hates AMD*
If Photoshope is a big deal go dual-core like the 3800+ Manchester and get a 2gigs or value ram, you'll really have it there. Intel is good in the video editing area particularly but the gap is really closing fast. Why do you hate AMD?
I don't like how they do business. Bait and switch, lying, those just aren't my style. Not to mention they somehow convinced everyone that a 4400+ means comparable to a 4,4ghz processor of intel... I just don't like their way of business.
if not comparable it surpasses the 4.4ghz intel in nearly every single synthetic benchmark. they may not be real actual results but they are close
I used to hate them too...then i got one, I love them! Now, i don't hate intel , at ALLLL, however if you want to talk about shady marketting look no further than video game ads. I saw an ad for a Tony Hawk game that said "works best with pentium 4 @ whatever ghz with Hyper Threading. The ad was boasting about HT , but games run on one thread so having the 2 logical processors doesn't boost gaming a bit. So they want you to blow the extra cash on a new processor with HT for gaming when it doesn't change a thing. Those liars. If i had a scanner i'd scan the page and link it, it wasn in a PC Gamer issue.
Yeah good point you see loads of those Intel adds like that. It would be just like if AMD went out and said "Leave your buddies in the dust with a blazing AMD 64 Processor with Dual-core technology!" which doesn't make a diffference in games just like hyperthreading. They should however have at least a few adds showing off their power in the industry anyway.
At the end of the day you want to go for the best all round performer, which essentially is AMD, it maybe slower at video editing or 3D Autocad, but it's only by a few milliseconds or 1 second at most! - nothing you're really going to notice. And if Photoshop or other programs are optimised for a P4, so what? - if you get a AMD64 or AMD64 Dual Core you'll notice them being equal if not most likely faster then the P4 would have performed. Also bare in mind that AMD cpu's perform alot better when given lower memory latencies due to the architecture.. P4's will as well, but AMD utilises the lower latencies much better. I would recommend getting an AMD64 (if not low end dual core) with 1GB of low latency memory (2-2-2-5 or 1.5-2-2-5 (geil One) or Gskill) and a fast harddrive with lots of cache. (16mb sata II).
Why also, do they have to follow intel? For years they've been following Intel and making affordable clone chips, which was licensed (a license which was attempted to be infringed by Intel when they realised AMD might become something). As for your argument on Photoshop, does it being compiled with optimizations for Intel make it AMD's fault? You would be surprised at the size and power of Intel compared to AMD, and yet they struggle to compete in a lot of applications. If you're really that bothered, go use Linux and compile GIMP with optimzations for AMD64. Then can you say its better to go with Intel? You think that AMD lie and cheat? Then why have they in confidence filed the anti-trust suite against Intel for unfair business practices? They must be going on some evidence. And its not the first time either. Maybe you'd like to backup your claims with evidence which is reliable and then we can have a discussion, because now its just one sided .
So Hyperthreading doesn't benefit gaming? Why not? Is the Hypertransport of AMD comparable to Hyperthreading? Are the faster FSB's and HT associated directly or is HT just a broader path for data? What apps are HT beneficial then if not for gaming?
Hyper threading is a method of splitting the CPU architecture so that there are 2 logical processing units. This doesn't mean there are 2 cores, or it gives you performance of 2 cores. Hyperthreading can give extra performance in some media applications which are optimized to take advantage of it, but there are down sides. In some cases, HT actually slows down the CPU. This is rare however, but also there were some security issues about the second logical unit being used to execute bad code. Overall it will help in video editing/other media optimized programs but not all. HT is not related to FSB speeds. Hypertransport is different, hypertransport is a different technology used by AMD and some other chip manufacturers to provide extremely fast communications bus between components. Hyper transport actually replaces the traditional FSB, as its a totally different bus altogether.
