If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Intel guy looking the AMD direction for the first time.
Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have
a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop. I have always been a fan of Intel... mainly because when I got into computers there was no AMD. My first IBM based PC was an 8088 with 640k RAM and a 21 megabyte hard drive. The first time I had any knowledge of an AMD product was around 1996. Because (and I might be remembering this incorrect ...) but as I remember a good friend of mine had a K5 processor and I remember he had all kinds of problems with Windows 95. MANY MANY more Windows 95 problems than I had on my 80486 SX 25... Or did I have the Packard Hell Pentium (Classic) 100 MHz by then... Lol... I don't remember. So as time went on I always stuck with Intel. I went from P classic to PMMX to PIII to the latest which is the Celeron laptop. Now I am looking to buy a new desktop and I am looking for the best new technology. I am very interested in 64 bit technology. I know Intel has had Itanium and Itanium II but as I understand it those are not for consumers. So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models. And is there any new AMD 64 FX chip coming in the fourth quarter 2004? Also can anyone explain the Intel roadmap for a consumer 64 bit CPU? Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect. I was looking at Alienware. Are there other sites as well? I have to say those Alienware systems always look damn cool. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"No spam" wrote in message
om... Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop. I have always been a fan of Intel... mainly because when I got into computers there was no AMD. My first IBM based PC was an 8088 with 640k RAM and a 21 megabyte hard drive. The first time I had any knowledge of an AMD product was around 1996. Because (and I might be remembering this incorrect ...) but as I remember a good friend of mine had a K5 processor and I remember he had all kinds of problems with Windows 95. MANY MANY more Windows 95 problems than I had on my 80486 SX 25... Or did I have the Packard Hell Pentium (Classic) 100 MHz by then... Lol... I don't remember. So as time went on I always stuck with Intel. I went from P classic to PMMX to PIII to the latest which is the Celeron laptop. Now I am looking to buy a new desktop and I am looking for the best new technology. I am very interested in 64 bit technology. I know Intel has had Itanium and Itanium II but as I understand it those are not for consumers. So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models. And is there any new AMD 64 FX chip coming in the fourth quarter 2004? Also can anyone explain the Intel roadmap for a consumer 64 bit CPU? Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect. I was looking at Alienware. Are there other sites as well? I have to say those Alienware systems always look damn cool. I'm not sure that AMD is really planning on releasing any new chips this year, but it's been a while since I've looked at one of their processor road maps. You may want to check www.amd.com for that information or do a google search for "AMD Road Map" or something like that. As for the "straight poop" on these chips, they are excellent preformers with amazing IPC. Which chip you should buy will depend greatly on what kind of work you do, I use AMD because I am a programmer who writes mostly web based applications. And as it so happens AMD chips are much faster than Intel's chips when it comes to running compiling source code, running webservers and running database servers (espeacially in 64b mode). AMD's also tend to out preform Intel chips in games, which was another factor in why I use AMD. As long as you get a good quality AMD system preferably with an nForce 3 you shouldn't have any problems what so ever with your system. From what I'm told Via chipsets have gotten better recently, but I've heard that a lot and every time I've ever tried one I was never happy with it. Which could explain your buddies experience with his K5, chances are it was running in a system that had a via chipset. Carlo |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
No spam wrote:
Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop. I have always been a fan of Intel... mainly because when I got into computers there was no AMD. My first IBM based PC was an 8088 with 640k RAM and a 21 megabyte hard drive. Well hi, and welcome to the 21st Century, Rip Van Winkle. :-) A lot of the rest of us in these newsgroups started on those 8088 PC clones ourselves, and we didn't seem to have much trouble accepting AMD as a credible alternative. Actually, AMD has been making Intel compatible chips for as long as Intel has been making them. Initially it was making them with the complete permission and support of Intel -- AMD was Intel's official second source right from the days of the original IBM PC. And then later it was making them without so much permission and support. :-) I think the first time I'd heard of AMD was when I was shopping for a cheap 287 coprocessor to fit to my 386DX CPU. (Yes, 386's could also be fitted to 287's rather than 387's.) Then later I found out that AMD not only made coprocessors but also direct clones of the processors. This was around 1988 or thereabouts. The first time I had any knowledge of an AMD product was around 1996. Because (and I might be remembering this incorrect ...) but as I remember a good friend of mine had a K5 processor and I remember he had all kinds of problems with Windows 95. MANY MANY more Windows 95 problems than I had on my 80486 SX 25... Or did I have the Packard Hell Pentium (Classic) 100 MHz by then... Lol... I don't remember. The K5 was not AMD's most successful design, not by a long shot. It was AMD's first attempt its own original design. It's previous processors were much more successful (the 386, 486, and 5x86), and it's later processors were much more successful (K6, Athlon, and Athlon 64). So yes, you could call the K5 to be AMD's lowest valley. Prior to the K5, AMD's designs were all direct copies transistor-for-transistor copies of Intel's processors -- since AMD had been Intel's second source for years prior to that. At around the time of the 386 were when AMD and Intel started having their first feuds; Intel no longer wanted to have AMD as its second source, while AMD insisted that they had a binding contract for just that. The court battle eventually came down to an agreement that AMD would stop cloning Intel's chips as of the end of the 486. So K5 was AMD's attempt to engineer a Pentium-workalike, but with their own original design inside. The K5 didn't succeed, but AMD's second attempt was the K6, which was also a Pentium-workalike, and it also fit into the Pentium socket. This was much more successful, and it in fact extended the Pentium infrastructure beyond the Pentium, beyond what Intel had imagined for that infrastructure. The K6 was competing against the Pentium II's and III's, which were on their next-generation infrastructure. AMD's next design, the Athlon, was (and is to this day) their most successful original design ever; and not only was it original on the inside, it was also original on the outside, as the Athlon uses no infrastructure at all that's similar to anything from Intel's; oh it runs all of the same software as Intel's, and all of the same peripherals, such as USB and PCI cards work with either Intel or AMD, but below that level Intel and AMD had diverged completely. Now the Athlon is giving way slowly to the Athlon 64, which is another completely original design, and actually quite a quantum leap over even the original Athlon, and anything that Intel has (including their Itanium). Now I am looking to buy a new desktop and I am looking for the best new technology. I am very interested in 64 bit technology. I know Intel has had Itanium and Itanium II but as I understand it those are not for consumers. No, the Itanium is definitely not for consumers (though originally Intel may have had such hopes and plans). These days, it's living out life as a server-only processor. So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models. And is there any new AMD 64 FX chip coming in the fourth quarter 2004? Well, the AMD Athlon 64 FX processors are AMD's ultimate gaming processors. And as such they are more expensive than their regular Athlon 64's. They typically have slightly better memory interfaces than the regular A64's, either dual-channel memory, or bigger cache, or both. I think most people suggest that you stay away from the FX's, as they are extremely expensive compared to the regular A64's. Quite a bit more money for only slightly better performance. Similarly, people suggest you stay away from Pentium 4 Extreme Edition vs. regular Pentium 4. Exact same reasons. Also can anyone explain the Intel roadmap for a consumer 64 bit CPU? Intel has copied AMD's 64-bit language extensions now. But it hasn't implemented these extension throughout the board on all of its processors. It is first going to implement them in its server Xeon processors, before it brings them to its desktop Pentium 4 processors. It's expect that these will take until the middle of 2005 before Intel has it fully incorporated on all of its non-Itanium processors. Intel calls its version EM64T, while AMD calls it's AMD64, but they are exactly the same thing. However, it's not just the extensions that matters here. AMD spent a great deal of time not only improving the language, but it also came up with an incredibly sophisticated infrastructure, which it calls Direct Connect Architecture. That's just a marketing term for a processor that connects to its RAM and its peripherals and to other processors directly with very few other chips required in between, allowing for much higher throughput. This is the real secret behind AMD64, not so much its 64-bittedness. Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect. Not having integrated graphics is a good choice. Integrated sound is actually not so bad, especially if you get a motherboard with an Nvidia chipset in it, because they have a version of the sound chipset that is present inside the Microsoft Xbox. And integrated NICs are just great, no reason why you would want a separate card for a NIC anymore. I was looking at Alienware. Are there other sites as well? I have to say those Alienware systems always look damn cool. Sure, they're supposed to look cool. They are geared towards the gaming enthusiast. Yousuf Khan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect. newegg.com has a good selection and prices. Look for a motherboard with the nForce3 250Gb chipset. Your aversion to integrated graphics is understandable, since they've always been somewhere between pathetic and mediocre on the performance scale. But you'd be hard-pressed to find a new motherboard that doesn't have both integrated NIC and sound these days. You're better off with an integrated NIC anyway (particularly for gigabit ethernet), because it can run straight off the south bridge and not tie up any PCI bandwidth. As for sound, new motherboards support 8-channel audio and SPDIF digital output, so I don't even see the need for an add-in sound card--and nothing's stopping you from disabling the onboard sound plugging a sound card if you want to anyway. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:08:38 -0700, No spam wrote:
So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models. And is there any new AMD 64 FX chip coming in the fourth quarter 2004? Very fast and very expensive. You'll pay a hefty premium (about $800) for a small percentage of increased speed. Even the cheapest A64 (about $140) will be at least 3 times faster than what you have now. Also can anyone explain the Intel roadmap for a consumer 64 bit CPU? Not me. The Intel CPu I had was a 486. Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect. Sorry, I've always built my own. try pricewatch.com. -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Lachoneus wrote:
Your aversion to integrated graphics is understandable, since they've always been somewhere between pathetic and mediocre on the performance scale. But you'd be hard-pressed to find a new motherboard that doesn't have both integrated NIC and sound these days. You're better off with an integrated NIC anyway (particularly for gigabit ethernet), because it can run straight off the south bridge and not tie up any PCI bandwidth. As for sound, new motherboards support 8-channel audio and SPDIF digital output, so I don't even see the need for an add-in sound card--and nothing's stopping you from disabling the onboard sound plugging a sound card if you want to anyway. You don't even need to disable the onboard sound system, you can keep it completely enabled and still put a secondary sound card in. These days with plug'n'play, you don't have to worry about resource conflicts as much. The sound cards just rearrange themselves into different configurations to accomodate whatever is in the computer. Yousuf Khan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Lachoneus wrote:
You're better off with an integrated NIC anyway (particularly for gigabit ethernet), because it can run straight off the south bridge and not tie up any PCI bandwidth. Which does the average home user a whole lot of good, considering they're limited by their internet connection of 1Mb/s (give or take)... 8) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"No spam" wrote in message om... So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models. Everybody in here is really helpful. For benchmarks, I like www.tomshardware.com Figure out which components you like, and then ask people in here about their experiences with those components. Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect. I was looking at Alienware. Are there other sites as well? I have to say those Alienware systems always look damn cool. The best custom shop there is for building your PC is either your basement, coffeetable, or kitchen table. (IMHO) Building your system yourself, you get a lot of knowledge about computers and how they work. Plus, most of the main manufacturers will give you three year warranties on the parts (Asus, MSI, Western Digital etc.) And Personally (I'm probably going to get flamed for saying this) I like the Athlon 64 3400+ Processor as the best value) There's not much of a performance difference between it and the 3500+ (in fact in some benchmarks I've seen, the 3400 can outdo the 3500) and you're going to pay less or the motherboard, you don't have to buy the more expensive dual-hanel memory kits, and the processor is a fair bit cheaper. So you now have a good amount of extra money to put into the components you want to splurge on, like more memory, better video card, or bigger hard drive.... But that's just me... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 In article ers.com, Yousuf Khan wrote: No spam wrote: Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop. I have always been a fan of Intel... mainly because when I got into computers there was no AMD. My first IBM based PC was an 8088 with 640k RAM and a 21 megabyte hard drive. Well hi, and welcome to the 21st Century, Rip Van Winkle. :-) A lot of the rest of us in these newsgroups started on those 8088 PC clones ourselves, and we didn't seem to have much trouble accepting AMD as a credible alternative. Actually, AMD has been making Intel compatible chips for as long as Intel has been making them. Initially it was making them with the complete permission and support of Intel -- AMD was Intel's official second source right from the days of the original IBM PC. And then later it was making them without so much permission and support. :-) Toward that end, I have an IBM PC/XT at home (the real thing, not a clone) that left the factory with an AMD processor. That would've been from the era when AMD was copying Intel's stuff instead of rolling its own. (Last time I switched it on, it still worked, too. It's currently set up with DR DOS 6 and the DOS SMB client off of an NT Server 4 CD. When it's hooked up to the network, it can access shared files on Linux and Win32 hosts (haven't tried it with Mac OS X, but that should work too) and it can print to shared printers...not bad for 20-year-old technology. :-) ) _/_ / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail) (IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting! \_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden What's the most annoying thing on Usenet? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Linux) iD8DBQFBRjGRVgTKos01OwkRAjN4AKCNjyhLnEUgRUGduIwXby YfHnH7QwCgrEpn KcsbwX7AJm3f6IZQyGCD0Lk= =Ozrs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ghost speed differerent in AMD & Intel | Zotin Khuma | General | 7 | November 17th 04 07:56 AM |
intel board, fans on during standby. intel d875PBZ. | JohnJ | General | 0 | January 13th 04 06:14 PM |
intel is all for looks | matthew utt | Overclocking AMD Processors | 6 | January 11th 04 07:47 PM |
AMD compared to Intel | Tod | Overclocking AMD Processors | 60 | December 4th 03 04:43 PM |
WD360 + Intel 875PBZ + XP Problem | @drian | General | 0 | November 6th 03 12:10 PM |