if an AMD 3200 runs at 2.1ghz... how come its so popular??

I dont get how AMD's are now the more popular Mainboard for gamers when Intel release's faster CPU's. Video cards can be installed so why is it that more people are opting for AMD over Intel?

 

Because clock speed isn't everything. An Athlon XP 3200+ performs on par with an Intel 3.2 Ghz chip in most benchmarks. And AMD chips are much cheaper.

 

Because more mhz does not always mean its faster. AMD has a more efficient processor.


AMD is usually a better bang for the buck, and when you take both and compare, AMD performs the similarly and in some cases, better than Intel.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2065&p=8

 

Currently, AMD has the fastest CPU on the market, if you have a lot of money to drop for it.

 

Sorry Wyatt_Earp, I posted without reading and realizing you said the same thing

 

Hey, no problem adryn, I'll consider it a compliment.

 

Please, not the whole AMD vs Intel thing again....

But as Wyatt_Earp and Adrynalyne said, CPU clock speed is no longer the majority factor in system performance.

Consider that Intel has dropped the next version P4's and Xeons to instead shift their attention to Pentium M-style processors (which simply do more work more efficiently per clock cycle).

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,116053,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/05/08/2121249.shtml?tid=118&tid=137&tid=187

[Remember to take the /. thread with the standard "Well, it's on /., what did I expect?" grain of salt.]

 

For the corporate customers, that right there is the largest factor. Most companies are VERY conservative as you've noted, since reliability is king on a work computer. Early AMD (& Cyrix) based system were inherently less stable, and had more hardware/software conflicts than Intel, by a large factor. Intel worked, and you never saw a non-Intel system in a work environment. That mindset has stuck. "Intel Inside" is still a selling feature.

While there are still a few chipsets/motherboards that are not totally stable, the stability issue is basically a thing of the past, with OEMs, as they CAN put systems together that are as stable as Intel. But OEMs are in the business of selling what the customer wants, not arguing with the customer about what is best, so computers targeted at businesses are still almost completely Intel based. And despite the popularity of home computers, the majority of computers sold are still to businesses.

 

I have my 3200+ running at 2.38 Ghz, rock solid, with no heat issues. Benches rate it at a 3.5 Ghz performance rating. I can live with that.

 

Does being a gamer make a computer buyer any less of a computer buyer than a business computer buyer?
Granted,, gamers usually just buy one computer, and businesses usually buy many, so I'm sure the money is in business buyers.

But, I believe the original post questioned why AMD was so popular, when Intel made much faster CPU's. Wyatt_Earp. Adryn, and da chicken were just pointing out that Intel doesn't make a faster CPU, and G.T. was (I think) saying that the problem wasn't so much with AMD, as it is with the chipset manufacturers.

 

The AMDs do more per cycle than Intels. Thats why they benchmark almost the same as a 3.0 ghz Pentium.

 

Nevermind.

 

Actually, GT was just saying that most of the AMD's glaring stability issues are behind them. Certainly not ALL of them. (My current ASUS board has a fatal conflict with my Audigy2 soundcard. I found a workaround, but that's inexcusable.) And yes, that's primarily because of the chipsets. Not just that they are inferior, but that Intel is universal, and all software/hardware is tested against it primarily. If the OS or other components don't work properly with the chipset, it doesn't really matter who's fault it is, you've got problems. And Intel's copyrights keep anybody else from duplicating theirs exactly, so everybody else is automatically at a disadvantage.

As MT points out, Intel has far superior overtemp protection, although the current boards with overtemp shutdown built-in will safely shut down if the fan fails (the normal failure). If the heatsink falls totally off, it will fry before the board can shut down. But that is a VERY slim possibility except possibly for an avid LAN party gamer that's dragging (and bouncing) his computer all over town. But a slowdown is far better in business than a shutdown. If my work computer is down, I'm useless to the company. I'll lose the company more money in a day than they'd have saved on a cheaper computer. Slow & limping is better than dead.

Chipped cores are an Athlon vulnerability, but that's simply a matter of amateurs that don't know how to put the heatsink on properly. And the new 64 bit chips have a heat spreader that eliminates that problem.

BUT. As long as Intel is even LIKELY to be a little bit more reliable than an AMD based system, businesses will spend the extra for Intel systems. Only makes sense. When I was nursing company computers, I/we went with Intel. I played with AMD and even Cyrix systems at home, but at home crashing doesn't cost you money or hurt your business.

AMD is, and for the forseeable future will be, primarily an amateur's choice, because it's cheaper. And there's nothing wrong with that. At home cheaper is just fine. I've been running Athlons at home and like them, but I've got the time, and the ability to nurse and tweak them to stability. And if I do have to reboot occasionally, I don't lose anything valuable. If I'm down for a day or two, it's not a disaster.

As I also noted, business buyers are CONSERVATIVE. Even assuming AMD licks the chipset confusion and comes out with a totally bulletproof system, they'll have a hard time convincing all those doing the buying to abandon Intel.

 

Afterthought...

Computer magazines and enthusiast websites give a misleading impression of AMD's popularity. Last I noticed AMD sales were about 10% of the market. Gamers, home builders, and bargain home systems primarily. In the overall scheme of things, they're not all that popular.

A few years ago, when money was tighter, I build my Dad an AMD K6 based computer from mostly used and spare parts as a Christmas present... to replace an elderly Gateway 386 16 Mhz system that wouldn't run some newer software he wanted to use. He appreciated it, but I was only 20 minutes away if he had problems. He's now in southern California, and last year wanted a new one. I recommended an Intel based Dell for reliablity and factory support.

 

ok, from reading this i get that AMD vs Intel is a very much asked question, so ill more or less change the topic. So seeing as people have said that clock speed is not as important anymore, what is it about AMD that makes them better for gamers? do they extra graphic enhancements? (also disregard overclocking and stability issues)

 

As long as you stay away from the budget processors (Duron, Celeron) you're pretty much going to get your money's worth whether you buy AMD or Intel. Quite honestly, I'll probably pick my next processor as much based on what motherboard and chipset features I want as the type of processor I actually end up getting. Intel chipsets have always been rock solid, and that's a portion of their appeal for me. I've never run nForce, so I'm a bit leery.

The only real choice right now is whether or not to hop on the 64-bit bandwagon yet. And seeing the extremely limited range of 64-bit OSes and applications, I'm of the opinion that it is nothing more than a bandwagon... at least for the time being.

I expect the current set of AMD64's to be well obsoleted by the time 64-bit is commonplace. Even if that's not the case, motherboards and chipsets of today lack DDR2, PCI Express, and have limited SATA support (they're all secondary SCSI controllers).

 

so your saying that with my Pentium 4 2.8ghz processor is good enough for games coming out soon? i got a 15000 cpu on Aquamark... is that good? it looks good compared to my 708 gfx score!

 

Nothing at all except the cost. There are no graphics enhancements in the CPU. Both Intel and AMD include special (and proprietary) code that can help a program, game or otherwise, run more efficiently (faster), andIntel has always had an edge in those special instructions. The programs have to be coded to USE those instructions to be faster. Since Intel is dominant, programmers include Intel optimizations more often than AMD.

It's back to cost. If you've got X dollars to put into your box, you can get basically equivelant processing power for less cost with AMD, allowing you to put more money elsewhere, like into one of the obscenely priced top-end video cards, where the graphics enhancements are.

 

the first pc i built (last year) for myself was an AMD based system. I replaced it with another AMD based system a couple of months ago. I have never had any problems with stability. I also do not overclock, i try to keep my OS 'clean', and my hardware cool. I went with AMD b/c i knew that I could get the most out of my money. Therefore, in my case, I feel like I would have wasted money going with an Intel-based system. I don't think I have a better system (compared to an Intel system) because what I have. I do feel I have a better system because I got more for my money. does that make sense?

Now, in saying that, if I was going to build a system for my wife, I would build an Intel-based system, because of the possible stability issues. A happy wife leads to a good life.

But like you said, to each his own.

 

ok, alot of question being asked in the one thread but anyway(this one will sound very n00bish). i have an ASUS motherboard, not an AMD or Intel. but for some reason i think that it is an Intel-based motherboard, or maybe im wrong but i know that my processor is definately an Intel. also, how do i see which type and model number of motherboard i have? cos i dont think device manager is showing it. is there something with pressing the DEL button when u start the comp or something? also thanks for answering all these questions and sorry to nag but 15000 CPU Aquamark score : good or bad?

 

......... .

 

Ditto. I wonder why AMD hasn't gotten into the chipset market -- although they are moving the memory controller to the CPU, which is probably a great idea.

In the past, AMD was a great choice because Intel was just too expensive. At that point, you could not have convinced me to go Intel. But ever since the price wars came to a head, I've favored Intel over AMD.

 

ok but could you say that an nVidia chipset is probably more reliable in producing better graphics (like more fps for instance)

 

Not really. The motherboard chipset has very little to do with framerates in games. All it does is direct the traffic and do flow control between the CPU and the AGP slot, and the AGP bus is pretty fast (2 GB/s , IIRC). You could easily choke the video card.

[Edit: That was Re: scroogle.]

 

don't forget to mention the drivers. Bottom line being that the drivers are the communication layer between the hardware and the chipset. Properly developed and maintained drivers could improve performance on a global scale. The chipset may have 2GB of pipe but if it's used inefficiently you could still be using less than expected or passing more information than is needed thus burdening the bus with garbage.

 

The P3 is faster than the P4 at the same MHz

I always love this topic

If you wanted reliability you would not be running Windows.
AMD/Linux or AMD/QNX is certainly more reliable than Intel/Windows.

But as Mastertech said, if you run a business and want less IT woes, go with Intel/Windows. It is not the best solution, but it is certainly the easiest to get help for.
On the other hand we just installed 5 AMD 64 laptops at my workplace that are VERY FAST and so far just as stable as their Intel bretheren. We will see how they last the summer heat in Florida before I am convinced they should replace our Intel units.