Ever since I computer (2-3 years ago) I had an AMD 64 I can garentee that it is one of the most stable running CPU's there are, (I hate intel) all my computers had intell befor I bought the AMD and the intel would burn out, die out, or somthing would just be bugged in it, because of that I don't really think there is any other way to go other than intel.

stick to intel, i heard from my friend that amd crashes a lot, and it will shut it self down when its over heated. don't know if thats true but i'm sticking with intel

Hrmmm... well im not sure what you are talking about here. Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm almost certain that intel processors run a lot hotter than AMD. The problem with intel is that the processors do not perform as many calculations per clock cycle and so to compensate, they ramp up the speed of the processor to get in more cycles. AMD take a slightly different approach, their chips perform more calculations per cycle and as a result do not produce as much heat as the intel chips.

I have a AMD 4800+ (Dual core) processor in my computer. This chip is so fast for using with 3ds Max, its not funny. One person mentioned before that the intel chips are better for multitasking, but now with the AMD dual-core chips, the tables have turned and the AMD chips are now better for multitasking and gaming. Not only are the amd dual core processors faster than the intel ones, they dont run as hot as them.

If you are going to be using programs such as 3ds Max, then I would suggest getting yourself a nice 3d card to go with it. You will need it for rendering, unless of course you are a very patient person!

[quote] and it will shut it self down when its over heated.[quote]
This is a GOOD thing, better a shutdown that a burnout.

His problem is with overheating.
He wither did not fit the heat sink correctly, did not use themral paste, overclocked, or simply does not use adiquate cooling.

WOW... dual core 4800+
NICE !

and i thought my Amd64 3400+ was fast !!

id love to link afew of those in a cluster !

man you want to talk near home super computing...lol.

if you do that I'll want to come visit and see it in action man that would be a real dream come true for me. Imagin using 3d studio max on a machine running 2 4800+'s with 3 gigs of ram per core and dual Radion 9800's...ohhh rendering heaven....

oh...forgot to mention on my last post. AMD rules Intel right now....time for intel to make a move or lose the market....

It really doesn't matter much for any programming language, the compiler should adapt to the CPU used.

They're totally NOT the same

AMD's are waay cooler than Intels, while P4's are about 50/60 C in temperature, the AMD's are often near the 30/40's

Also, it's a fact that amd's have better performance per megahertz.

I haven't read everything, yet, but this is what I think about the AMD or Intel question.

Today AMD is the best to get, mainly because it runs a lot cooler and cheaper (consumes less energy) and also possible more quiet.
For speed I would also go for an AMD, nowadays they have SSE3 too, but if you go dual core, I would go for Intel (only speed wise) because they offer dual core models at higher speeds.

If you go budget, I'm not shure, the Semprons are relatively cheap, and the Celeron D are better than normal Celerons. I'd go for a low speed S939 Athlon64 instead of a sempron or celeron.

Price wise; if you are a REAL gamer, go for the FX57, lots of power, lots of overclocking but hiiiigh price.
For Dual Core, I'd suggest Intel, because they are cheaper.
For Single Core, go for AMD.

I agree if you're a gamer you'd go A64FX, and otherwise dual-core. But Intel announced a 130W TDP max for their Pentium D & EE 840 .. and they released a chip at that TDP in May (I think it was 620 or something). If you overclock, you'd have crazy temps, though if you're going dual-core you probably wouldn't anyway. I'd still go AMD for dual-core because of the better design wrt lower latency integrated memory controller & crossbar switch, higher performance (as you mentioned), lower TDP & probably much lower electricity bills in the long run with PowerNow etc esp if you use your PC a lot ;-). I'd only really go intel if there's was some platform benefit, but i can't see any at the moment. I still can't understand why someone would go the intel route right now, esp since next year everything changes .. so there's no realistic upgrade path after next year, probably!

It's not usually automatic, you have to tell the compiler to optimise for SSE3 & any other options you like (like x86-64), and this all adds to the bulk/size of the binary output. Most apps I've seen still don't take advantage of SSE3, for example, though AMD now has this too, so there's no issue .. plus SSE3 was just a few extra instructions (about 12, I think .. can't remember exactly .. one of the things it had beyond SSE2 was some further speed ups for matrix calcs).

K8 & P4 are totally different architectures. The biggest problem with P4 & the NetBurst architecture is it's deep pipeline (number of stages in a cycle) design, cf K8 which is more closer to the prev gen good x86 designs! The reason for going that route is to make it easier to clock at higher freqs, but the downer is much lower performance per clock cycle, and so they had to do stuff like SSE3 (SIMD) & parallel pipelines & intelligent compilers and branch predictors trying to guess what might be next so they can work ahead of time & keep all those pipelines full and busy ... unfortunately they found they couldn't do it well enough, there were too many branch mispredictions (equiv to cache misses in HDD algs etc). Still it was a really interesting ride from the theory point of view to see that this can't be done well even with really smart compiler writers etc :-).

I think you meant performance (GHz) per Watt (TDP). And you're correct, intel are now focusing on this issue, but it'll be next year by they time they finally get something out to compete!

[quote=qwijibow,Jul 31 2005, 04:39 PM]
[quote] and it will shut it self down when its over heated.[quote]
This is a GOOD thing, better a shutdown that a burnout.

His problem is with overheating.
He wither did not fit the heat sink correctly, did not use themral paste, overclocked, or simply does not use adiquate cooling.

WOW... dual core 4800+
NICE !

and i thought my Amd64 3400+ was fast !!

id love to link afew of those in a cluster !

[/quote]

Totally .. I think all the probs I've seen with failed discs etc were somehow related to not cooling properly (one I shortcircuited & it literally was on fire with smoke bellowing out of it, the other, well someone turned on the heating on the hottest day on the decade ... a day when tarmac at Heathrow had melted ... the AC's dial was labelled incorrectly, which I noted, but this person thought otherwise!). Now I'm a paranoid backup'r ;-).

The 4800 rating assumes you can make serious use of those with 2 decent threads! There's been a number of people overclocking recent A64FX's to beyond 3GHz .. that's probably more useful to most people. The only software I know of that makes use of >2 threads is for engineering & rendering .. though yes I too wish I could persuade my lab to get a tightly clustered Infiniband HTX system, if it was a bit cheaper & if it didn't already spend money on a Xeon cluster last year ;-).