Intel or AMD

[MacUK]

I,ve been told AMD proccessors overheat easily and tend to give system crashes when using them allot like for encoding, does anyone have any insight to this or is a Pentium the better choice of proccessors for encoding ???

[spidey]

You're opening up a can of worms here again with the debate.
I have heard the same, that the AMD's are not cooling quick enough which in turn COULD burn them quicker. This forum is rich with people who live and swear by AMD's, and by the cost of their price, they easily would be worth it, even if they POSSIBLY may burn out quicker. But if it does, so what, in all honesty, at their cost, it'd be a drop in the bucket by that time. But, it's all in what you use it for.
I use a Pentium, always have, probably always will. Most software is written around their architecture, and I'm just used to them. However, I know that there are plenty of people here who are the same with AMD's.

[Sefy]

I will not comment on Intel, i'll just focus on your question, i'm one of those "fanatics" who use AMD cpu's, i've had both AMD and Intel since the 386, 486, and onwards, and i've not had a CPU burn on me yet, it's all about cooling, the same way you can fry an AMD cpu, you can fry an Intel CPU, if you get a low quality and unrecommanded CPU cooler, you will damage it, but if you spend a little extra on a cooler your CPU will live longer, and this is relevent to both CPUs

[Lambchop]

So what are average running temps for AMD's? I know that mine runs quite hot (45-50C), even compared to people with exactly the same setup (Processor, heatsink etc.), except for the MoBo. I'm not overclocking it either.

[yukoncornel]

I am using an AMD 1.2 Ghz and have had no problems with crashes. The motherboard used is usually (IMHO) a bigger concern than the CPU. It has been taking me 6 hours to encode a 2 hour SVCD movie using CBR, twice that if using multi-pass VBR. I have encoded about 10 times without a crash yet, and I am using a cheesy $59 motherboard with via chipset... in other words, nothing special. I start my encode when I go to bed, and a big fat mpg file is waiting for me when I wake up. I use SmartRipper, DVD2AVI, and Tmpgenc.
You can't beat AMD when it comes to cost. Here in San Diego a 1.4 Ghz OEM Athlon is going for $119. AMD has something like 25% of the market right now, this despite Intel spending lots of marketing $$$ telling everyone to only buy INTELINSIDE, so AMD must be doing something right. I have used both Intel and AMD and both work. It;s personal preference for the most part, but AMD will always give you more bang for the buck however because of their aggresive pricing.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: yukoncornel on 2001-09-14 19:21:39 ]</font>

[Sefy]

My 1ghz CPU is running between 30 to 40, but that is more the fault of the current weather in Israel which is extremly hot and I sweat more then the CPU
That's why I keep my computer case open so there will be more cool air flowing into it, i'm not too worried about heat cause i've not yet had problems in it, and i've also enabled my boards CPU overheat warnning, although it has not warned me yet.

[LighthouseJ]

More than likely, the differnce is hardly negligible for our uses, but I think people like AMD's because they are pulling for the little guy, in the over-towering shadow of the big corporation. But there's a reason why they (Intel) are a big coporation, they've been in business doing this longer (read: have more experience). It's AMD's job to play catch up.

[gf]

I have an AMD Athlon 1.2 Ghz unit overclocked to 1.33 Ghz and it's no problem at all. I followed their layout for cooling (fans, large heat sink, 300 Watt power supply) and there are NO CRASHES AT ALL!!!

[Sefy]

AMD may be a smaller company and with less experience, although they have existed for nearly as long as Intel, but it seems to be that lately Intel is doing the catching up the AMD.

[KingJohn]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-09-15 10:17:34, Sefy wrote:
AMD may be a smaller company and with less experience, although they have existed for nearly as long as Intel, but it seems to be that lately Intel is doing the catching up the AMD.

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

What with a 2Gb chip you mean ?

[kr0n0s]

i am running a 750 duron currently at 840, it also runs in the 30-40 range before the A/C .. with my current setup i can keep my CPU at about 17 degrees

[Stansell]

I just recenlty upgraded from a PIII 500Mhz system to an AMD 1.4 Ghz.

Up until now I've always been partial to Intel (no concrete reason, just felt it would be more "compatible" ) and was strongly looking at getting a Pentium IV. When I started looking at upgrading, the AMD had such a price advantage over the Pentium IV that I looked into it more.

I checked several sites and looked at benchmarks between the two. The part that made it hard for me to decide was that fact that AMD tended to beat the P-IV on most benchmarks except on multimedia encoding programs that used the SMID 2 extensions. I decided that the gains in encoding with the PIV were not enough to counter-balance the price advantage of the AMD.

I've had no problems with it, I get great captures and conversions. Just be sure you have proper cooling in your system.

The AMD website has recommendations for cooling their processors and a list of approved heat sinks and fans. I added an extra fan to my case to keep the air flow moving.

I think something that may add to the perception that AMD's run hot and risk burning out is that they are a favorite of the overclocking crowd and those people are pushing the processors even hotter. I prefer to keep my system running as designed and not pushing it. I stuck strictly to AMD's recommendations for cooling.

So far, no crashes, no problems, fast encoding.

Now that Intel has lowered prices, I can see that it would be harder to decide what to get. If I could get an equivalent PIV system for around the same price as an AMD, I would likely go that way. My main reason being that TMPGEnc is optimized for the P IV. But I've been happy with the AMD and cant imagine there is much difference on the speed.

Just be aware that many people have strong opinions either way and their arguments start to sound like two country boys arguing over Ford vs. Chevy trucks. Some people have strong brand loyalty and won't listen to advantages to the other brand or accept criticism of their favorite brand. Keep this in mind when reading posts about either brand.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stansell on 2001-09-15 11:31:15 ]</font>

[Sefy]

Oh you mean that 2ghz that can barely outperform a 1.4 ? you call that a competition ? cause if you like, I can put the number 2ghz on a 1.4ghz, then you'll have equal benchmarks. pity Intel has to become Arafat and lie to the public in order to sell something.

[gf]

I have built a few computers for friends and BOSSES at work using AMD's Duron cpu's. Granted they run cooler then their big brothers (Athlon) I only had 1 extra case cooling fan besides the the fan in the power supply. And all these people are working fine with no lockups.

[gf]

I would like to add one comment to another post about SSE2. The new Palamino (Athlon) will understand SSE incodeing and the Hammer family (64 bit machines) will understand SSE & SSE2.

[Stansell]

Note that I said :
"If I could get an equivalent PIV system for around the same price as an AMD, I would likely go that way."

To clarify, when I said "equivalent" I was refering to performance, not clock speed.

AMD definitely will struggle trying to explain that to the unwashed masses yearning to buy a PC.

[Sefy]

Exactly Stansell! Intel is having so much trouble beating AMD in performance, that they are using the numbering as a sales point! which by the way, still doesn't get them anymore, as most people would prefer a P3 over a P4, so they are now phasing out the P3 out of the market to force people to buy P4.... tss tss tss... sometimes I almost feel sorry.... NOT

[LighthouseJ]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-09-15 12:24:32, gf wrote:
I have built a few computers for friends and BOSSES at work using AMD's Duron cpu's. Granted they run cooler then their big brothers (Athlon) I only had 1 extra case cooling fan besides the the fan in the power supply. And all these people are working fine with no lockups.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Computers are at the place where unless you don't drill in the processor (like I have), it won't lock up. Computers are pretty fault-tolerant.

[f_oneone]

i have 2 computers 1 is a p3 1 gig settup-
the other is:
amd-thunder 1 gig (266 front side bus)
my amd runns far better & more stable
highest temp i have gotten is 53c
due to the overall punishment i put it through

many ppl say certain programs don't runn as well
on amd as pentium's
bullshit pure bullshit
all my adobe prog's run more stable & faster on my amd
unit than they do on my pentium-

& video conversions are about the same time
both systems have 512mb of ram fyi

just my 2 cents

[LighthouseJ]

Are you sure they run fast or do you just want them to? I'm willing to bet you are exaggerating the different, even without knowing it.

[speedy]

Yes, the AMD runs hotter than Intel. Someone said awhile back it was hot where he was so he took the cover off to keep it cool. WRONG! That will most often make the CPU hotter, because the idea is to create an air current across the CPU.

You accomplish that by sucking air in from the front of the case and pull it out the back. If you yank off the back or side of the case, no real directed air current and you defeat the purpose of one of the fans. AMD is very specifc about this on their site which is why they have an "approved" list of cases that support a dual fan scheme.

Now if you want to go a little nuts with cooling, get a section of flexiable vent tubing that's used to exhaust fans in bathrooms or in a clothes dryers and using duck tape create a tunnel from the front fan (air in) to an inch or so from your CPU's base. Don't aim at top of CPU or you defeat the CPU heatsink fan. Of course be careful no metal touches anything and seal any air leaks by wrapping whole thing in duct tape, especially when it is attached to the fan mounting. I got a reduction of 5 degrees with that little trick. Repeating test with cover off the temp went up 2 degrees. There are also fans you can get that speed up automatically if the CPU starts to heat up. I saw a similar "product" on a web site where they did the same thing with plasic tubing. Why pay $25 when you can make your homemade version and use a more powerful fan.

Expect an increase of 5-9 degrees when under load for ten minutes or more. Encoding is for sure a load condition. Unless something is very wrong the tempature should not get above the initial increase even if you are encoding over night.

Sidebar: I saw this GIANT fan designed for case cooling at a local computer store that moved 76 Cubic feet of air a minute. Had to have it. Well it worked great and would blow paper across the room from several inches aways. My kind of case fan.

Minor problem, it operated at 5500 RPM, sounded like a vacuum cleaner and had a high pitched whine besides. It dropped the tempature by 12 degrees, but I couldn't stand the noise for more than a few minutes.

[KingJohn]

Certified, in the UK that means you get locked away becuse your mad is it the same in the USA ?

John
Real Computer Technician.
Don't email me for faster responce

Only kidding !

[mgs666]

i'am running an AMD 1.400@1.600 with the standard coolfan.

my pc is encoding vcd 24h/24 and i have no crash.

for me Amd is the best.

[Sefy]

Alot of PC crashes don't even relate to CPU, most of them can relate to combination of Hardware, mostly Mainboard / RAM is the most fatal combination, sometimes a mainboard does not support certain type of RAM well (buffered/unbuffered for example) and that's where all your problems start with the blue screen and lockups.

PS: to all EPoX 8KTA3 owners, there has just been a BIOS update to support the new AMD MP/Palomino and Morgan CPU's, so now you can put all the new ones on the board you bought!

Told you so!
letmeinforgodsake, why do you want in ? you are already in an asylem!

[gf]

AMD's Hammer vs Intel's Itanic

Is the price right?
By Mike Magee, 16/09/2001 12:28:02 BST


WE CANNOT EVEN BEGIN to imagine how much money La Intella has poured into its 64-bit project since it started seven or more years ago.
It's probably, no almost definitely, billions of dollars.

Currently, a 800MHz/4MB Itanium costs $4,227, a 800MHz/2MB $1,980, a 733/4MB $4,227 and a 733MHz/2MB $1,177.

As a reader points out, these are OEM prices. Buy an extra 733MHz for a Dell Itanic and add $2,966, and for an 800MHz/4MB chip, $6,616.

When McKinley enters its pilot stage, we expect the prices of its top end processors to be around about the same price, so preserving the high end 32-bit Xeon processors Intel will start selling early next year.

Cor blimey. For the price of one 800MHz Itanium, you can almost buy a pint of lager in a central London pub.

So how will AMD Hammer microprocessors compare against these prices?

We expect the prices of the chips, which will be produced using .13 micron manufacturing and SOI, to be nowhere near as expensive as anything Intel can produce, and that AMD will attempt to proliferate its X86-64 platform using an aggressive pricing campaign.

If Clawhammer, for example, is 80 square millimetres or so at .13 micron, that's probably around $150-$200. McKinley will probably be around 450 square millimetres, maybe.

Note the overhead built into the Itanium family. Not only have they been in development for over seven years, but the price also includes money pledged to the IA-64 fund, help given to independent software vendors, PC customers and who knows who else.

AMD's argument about its X86-64 family is that it will be just as easy to run software on this platform as it was on the 32-bit platform, while Intel's customers, many of which are committed to the IA-32 platform, will wonder how they will move their current code base to the Itanic platform without some loss in performance and compatibility. The microcode, of course, is a completely different kettle of fish.

As we reported some weeks ago, the 870 chipset is not going to be the panacea we were told eighteen months ago it was going to be.

But there's more to this picture now than meets the eye. We believe that the reason AMD showed so much reluctance to do anything to rescue Alpha engineers or strike any deal with Samsung is because the designers - led by Dirk Meyer - have got some new "smarts" up their corporate sleeves that so far is top secret.

Those smarts might include, for example, on die symmetric multiprocessing.

And since the Alpha technology was ceded to Compaq, we've seen HP make a bid to takeover Capellas' company, and announce a flurry of projects to secure the corporate base for the 64-bit Itanium platform.

We're still, by the way, waiting for company officials from Intel, HP and Compaq to come clean about the strange coincidence which saw all the little dominoes fall over just at the right time.

The latest mystery, reported exclusively here, was that the chipset designers at HP were offered jobs at Intel in mid-August, and that HP's PA-RISC engineers will benefit in the same way.

All the ducks are now lining up in Intel's favour, save for IBM and Sun - each of which, obviously totally coincidentally -- has its own 64-bit architecture.

AMD, on the other hand, has one big advantage over Intel, and that's size and nimbleness. Intel has 80,000 employees or so, AMD 13,000 or so. (While we're on this subject Nvidia only has around 1,000).

There's some ifs involved here. If AMD's design for Hammer is good, if it is produced cheaply, and if it sells in sufficient quantity, there's a fair old chance we'll see affordable 64-bit computing for the X86 platform sooner than anyone anticipated.

And just because Intella spent billions on IA-64 doesn't necessarily mean a damn thing. IBM spent billions on OS/2 as well... µ

[warbird]

http://www.streamgate.de/filer_test/tomshardware/THG_CPU_Cooling.zip

[Sefy]

I Just wish I knew where all those billions IBM spends on OS/2 are going, cause if it wasn't for Serenity Systems taking over the OS/2 code, there propably wouldn't be any new version, goddamn all those big companies, when they finally have a good product, they don't support it!