Which is better.

[Daaave]

I need a new CPU and don't really know much about this so could any one tell me which would be a better one to buy.

 

This one

or

This one

 

for the first I'm talking about the top one and the second the top 2.

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

EDIT: Links fixed.

Edited December 19, 2005 by sucky

[Judge Hades]

Um... They both go to the same place. Microsoft.

[Deraldin]

Try again. They went to Microsoft the first time I clicked them but then the correct place the second time. Anyway, don't buy either of them. Go with a socket 939 AMD.

[Judge Hades]

AMD is the best to go. You will get the most bang for your buck, but you will want to put in an extra fan because they do tend to run a little hotter.

[Daaave]

Links both work now, just checked.

[alanschu]

AMD is the best to go.  You will get the most bang for your buck, but you will want to put in an extra fan because they do tend to run a little hotter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

They may run hotter, but they're designed to work that way. Ironically, the only person in my rather hot (in the summer time) apartment that ever has heating issues is my roommate and his P4.

[Dhruin]

That simply isn't true for current generation product. It varies from model to model but AMD Athlon64s can generate as little as half the heat of current P4 models.

 

S754 is discontinued - buy a 939 AMD.

[alanschu]

I'll admit that my interest in the minute details of the CPU market has dwindled. I remember the Athlon's being crazy hot before...just figured they'd still be today.

 

 

I think according to the BIOS of both of our computers though, my CPU does run hotter than his CPU. His just has a lower warning point, at which point his mobo starts beeping and underclocks his CPU. Funny stuff.

[Daaave]

Thanks for help, looked for 939's and was wondering if the 2nd one on THIS page is decent.

 

Thanks again.

[Surreptishus]

Whats your current cpu?

[angshuman]

Aaaaaaaaaaaccchhh!!! Nein! Nein!!!

 

1). Intel's current desktop CPU's are the *hottest* running among all contemporary processors **** BY FAR ****. They require a much more elaborate heatsink than their AMD counterparts in order to operate within their specified thermal envelopes. Their power consumption is also MUCH larger. The Prescott core is a joke, you can actually fry eggs on it.

 

2). In terms of pure performance, if you look at Media Encoding tasks (MP3, Divx encoding etc.), Intel's desktop processors have a slight edge due to their superior floating point (SSE) engines, but at everything else, AMD's processors perform better. The performance gap is *ridiculous* for games.

 

In the light of the above 2 facts, if you look at the Power/Performance equation, you will start wondering how Intel has even managed to survive in the desktop market for the past couple of years. (The answer is simple -- AMD's manufacturing and supply capabilities are laughable compared to Intel's). The story is very different for Mobile processors, though. The Pentium M (used on Centrinos), to put it simply, just rocks.

 

The bottom line is, stay away from Intel until they launch Conroe.

Edited December 20, 2005 by angshuman

[Daaave]

Whats your current cpu?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

AMD Athlon XP 2000+

[angshuman]

Thanks for help, looked for 939's and was wondering if the 2nd one on THIS page is decent.

That's a very good CPU, but I would say that the best value for money right now is the Athlon64 3200+ (Venice). Here in the US, it costs about $15 more than the 3000+, and the increased performance is worth it. Beyond the 3200+, the price curve steepens horribly.

[Daaave]

Looked at 3200+ (it's the 3rd down on the last page i linked) and it's only

[Judge Hades]

It has to do with chip architecture. For raw computing power Intel is faster but if you go int omore complex operations the AMD is equal or faster than its Intel counterparts.

[Daaave]

Ah OK thanks for clearing that up for me Hades.

[Judge Hades]

Well, that is how I was told. May be true or it might not. :D

[Daaave]

I'll trust you on it,, but if it's wrong there's gonna be hell to pay. "

[Surreptishus]

AMD chips perform more instructions per clock cycle.

[angshuman]

All processors operate in units of time known as "Clocks". The time period of this clock is what determines the frequency (or the GHz rating) of the processor. For example, a 3.0GHz Pentium4 has a clock that ticks 3 billion times a second, which means that the "clock cycle time" is about 0.33 nano-seconds. As a user, however, you should neither be interested in the clock frequency nor the amount of work done per clock. What you are interested in is, quite simply, the amount of work the processor can do per second, which is given by (work done per cycle) * (cycles per second or GHz).

 

During the Pentium-III / AMD K6 era, both vendors had very similar microarchitectures, which meant that the (work done per cycle) part of the equation was similar. Therefore, performance was directly proportional to the GHz rating.

 

With clock frequencies hitting 1 GHz, it became apparent to both vendors that they would no longer be able to continue increasing the frequency at the breakneck speed thay had been until now, due to several reasons. Here is where both companies split off in different directions: AMD decided to bite the bullet and stick with making marginal changes to their microarchitecture while continuing to increase clock frequencies at a reduced rate, and brought out the K7 (AthlonXP).

 

Intel pulled a fantastic stunt -- they designed a completely new microarchitecture that did a lot LESS work per clock, but enabled the continued bumping of frequencies at breakneck rates. The Pentium 4 was born. This was purely a marketing decision -- Intel's genius sales people decided that the average populace actually did not know anything about performance, but they did associate with the hyped-up GHz rating.

 

The end result was that both vendors ended up having more or less similar performance, but Intel's sales shot up due to its brilliant marketing.

 

However, towards 2003-2004, all hell broke loose for Intel. Power and temperature problems became so severe that they could no longer continue to increase the clock frequencies. They further refined their microarchitecture to bump up the frequency even more (and you guessed it -- do even less work per clock) and came out with the Prescott, but this core was an absolute disaster (incidentally, all Pentium4's you can buy today are Prescott derivatives). People were becoming more and more performance savvy, and GHz was no longer selling.

 

Meanwhile, AMD had continued to make incremental improvements their age-old microarchitecture, and finally came out with the K8 (Athlon64, Sempron etc.) -- this core was simply beautiful. Elegant, ultra-refined due to the years of work, power-efficient, and high-performing. To put the nail into the coffin, AMD squeezed a piece of circuitry that was until now to be found only on the motherboard -- the Memory Controller -- into the processor chip itself. It is this On-Chip Memory Controller that by far plays the most significant role in ensuring AMD's performance superiority in a lot of applications, and games in particular.

 

Intel processors are supposed to have better SSE engines than AMD's, which is why they are slightly superior in media-encoding and decoding applications.

 

To summarize, if you compare Intel's and AMD's processors at a specific price point:

- Ignoring AMD's memory controller and Intel's SSE engine, processors from both vendors perform about the same -- Intel has a higher frequency but does less work per clock cycle, vice-versa for AMD.

- Intel's processors run blazing hot, and it is possible for your house's lights to grow dim if you switch on a Pentium4-powered machine. (edit: just kidding about this, but they are seriously power-hungry)

- Intel's SSE engine gives them a slight performance edge in media applications.

- AMD's on-die memory controller gives them a slight edge in most general-purpose applications, and a significant advantage in gaming.

Edited December 21, 2005 by angshuman

[Judge Hades]

Wow. Thanks for clearing that up guys. I am sure Sucky will find it more interesting than what I said. Cool beans, peeps.

[Marka Ragnos]

make sure that you get a new motherboard that supports that cpu socket as well.

[alanschu]

With clock frequencies hitting 1 GHz, it became apparent to both vendors that they would no longer be able to continue increasing the frequency at the breakneck speed thay had been until now, due to several reasons. Here is where both companies split off in different directions: AMD decided to bite the bullet and stick with making marginal changes to their microarchitecture while continuing to increase clock frequencies at a reduced rate, and brought out the K7 (AthlonXP).

 

Just because I'm an annoying nitpicker, the original Athlon processor was the K7, and it was the one that reached the 1 GHz plateau. My 1 GHz Thunderbird core (on die L2 cache) was an absolute beast when I got it. I remember playing Counterstrike, and the only team I ever was was the CT, because I loaded into the game way faster than anyone else. It was cool :cool:

[angshuman]

Just because I'm an annoying nitpicker, the original Athlon processor was the K7, and it was the one that reached the 1 GHz plateau.  My 1 GHz Thunderbird core (on die L2 cache) was an absolute beast when I got it.  I remember playing Counterstrike, and the only team I ever was was the CT, because I loaded into the game way faster than anyone else.  It was cool :cool:

Ah, I see... thanks for the correction. Let me see if I can reconstruct the timeline. Of course, the comparisons aren't exact, since both manufacturers introduced their products at slightly different times.

P-III Coppermine <=> K7 (Thunderbird etc.)

P-4 Willamette, Northwood <=> K7 (Thoroughbred etc.)

P-4 Prescott <=> K8 (Hammer, Winchester etc.)

[Sargallath Abraxium]

...if ya really want ta "future-proof" yer rig, get an AMD X2 Dual Core; the 3800+ X2 can be had fer $350 Canadian if ya know where ta look...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

Edited December 21, 2005 by Sargallath Abraxium