AMD. They generate a little less heat and as I have had 3/4 of all my computers AMD, They have never let me down yet. Of the other 1/4 1 was P3 and 1 was celeron. I will stick with what works.

Finalday

Until that final day. /Keith Green\ (1953-1983)

@finalday, I think it was Taw and Chet that both said to me that AMD's use more electricity and wouldn't that usually mean that they are hotter? I took their advice and bought an Intel Pentium 4 betraying my 5 year AMD computer, which was sent to me originally with a bad AMD processor which couldn't take it when I rebooted the computer using the reset button too many times, of which I had to do a lot. And I never dared hit that same button with the new processor. Before that I had a Cyrix 6x86 +133 computer which I still use to play Privateer 1 ... whatever happened to Cyrix?

I love my new Pentium 4 with this wonderful system XP Professional. It is fantastic to know what reliability is again!


Sir Spectre

You're right SS, AMD's run at higher voltages, and produce more heat. P4's a are better chip because they run at lower voltages and run cooler. As for which is "better" it depends on what you want to use them for. AMDs can be faster in games, but P4's are better with applications. These are general rules though, as there is much subjectivity to the tests, and it varies from CPU to CPU.

Cyrix's death blow, ironically, was AMD when the K6s came out ... I think it was the K6s. Cyrix didn't seem to have the financial savvy to keep moving up and expanding and upgrading chip fabrication capability like AMD. And this was an imperative to stay in the race because Intel was doing it all the time. Still is.

Right now I'd say the Intel processors are more reliable, but AMD's are still cheaper and who knows where this 64 bit archetecture will take AMD. We need apps to test it out.

And the only reason AMD processors go faster is that AMD over-clock them before the sale.


BlazeME: Flameus Muchus n00bus

Help me on Outwar.com

I've always been impartial to Intel chips, mainly because they run at lower temperatures than AMD's. Hyperthreading and overclockability sealed the deal by a long way at my last CPU purchase, I can easily knock a 2.6c up to 3.0Ghtz without breaking a sweat or needing additional cooling. However if I had to buy one tomorrow i'd have to have a long look at AMD's 64-bit chip.

Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel Intel

AMDs are ok if you want to save money but keep a bit of performance, but I'd still rather o'c a Celeron and get much the same throughput. Btw I only use Intel, did I mention that?

@Taw, I thought Celerons were total crap, every techie I've spoken with has said that.

Sir S

that's because of the lack of L2 cache, but they're ok for cheapness and reliability for bog-standard desktop solutions. They're not a patch on the P4s, but here's an example; my work machine (the one I'm on now, and why are you up so late, sS?) is a 1.8 Celeron o'cd to 2.66ghz and is 100% rock solid and has been for 6 months. The Celerons were absolutely fonk in the past, esp the first ones, but as long as you don't expect too much from them, they're fine.

I'm up late, because cutting down trees has kept my momentum up for the day. I'm only now starting to get tired. I was only weary before.

Sir S

amd i have always prefered them
they have given me a lot less grief than intel and if they didnt exist i wonder how much a p4 chip would cost ?

I think Esqy mentioned this before. I know someone else did.

The Athlon-64 and the Athlon-64 FX 51s are the only non-server side consumer desktop 64 bit CPUs publicly announced to date. BUT, the Intel Prescott P4s are due out shortly. They are on 90nm thick wafers and have a 31 stage processing core. Rumored but neither denied nor confirmed by Intel is that these babies also will have 64 bit support.

Current Prescotts for market will only ratchet up as high as 3.4gh and perform at less than the "Extreme Editions." However, because of the 90nm with 31 stage processing design, reviewers say that the Prescotts will really take off and step
up the speed. They are anticipating 4, 5 and 6 gh speeds going forward.

myself i think anyone who wants a Two-Jabs (Prescott) for 64-bit use should wait until the next Intel release after that, this new processor is just an temporary expedient and will be trialling the new technology. Don't rely on it if you're serious about going to 64-bit, just yet.