Pentium 4 vs. AMD 64

[XxGodJrxX]

Hey everybody. I was looking at some computers, and I see that both a Pentium 4 3ghz and an AMD 64 3000+ are priced around the same. Which one of these is better? I would like to be able to run newer games on it comfortably. It seems that the AMD 64 is clocked at around 1.8ghz, yet priced around the same, leading to my confusion. Which one of these two would you recommend?

[Chief911]

Intel over AMD and its not close. Unless you like weird odd things happening to your computer randomly.

Nick

[XxGodJrxX]

What kind of weird things?

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
Intel over AMD and its not close. Unless you like weird odd things happening to your computer randomly.

Nick

[/ QUOTE ]

never had that problem before.

[Terry]

You can’t just compare clock speed since they work differently. The number in AMD nomenclature gives a rough performance comparison to a Pentium speed, i.e. AMD 3000 = Pentium 3.0, AMD 2400 = Pentium 2.4.

In general, AMD tends to work somewhat better for games and Intel tends to be a little better for things like video editing and CD burning. The difference is real but it isn’t really very great.

Unless a person has some very specific needs and has the technical knowledge to differentiate, I suggest that price is the biggest factor to use in deciding between them.

I play games, I don’t do any video editing and rarely burn a CD. Every few years when I am building a new computer I read lots of tech sites and forums to find the best bang for my buck, including comparing recent comparisons between Intel and AMD. I haven’t bought an Intel CPU since some time in the 1980s ... partly because the competition is a little better for my specific uses but mainly because of the price difference.

My computer rarely does random odd things. When it has, I have usually been able to trace those things to Windows or to nasty little things I’ve picked up by browsing questionable websites or from nasty email. I have never found my CPU to be the problem.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
... when I am building a new computer I read lots of tech sites and forums to find the best bang for my buck, including comparing recent comparisons between Intel and AMD. I haven’t bought an Intel CPU since some time in the 1980s ... partly because the competition is a little better for my specific uses but mainly because of the price difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. I haven't used Intel for the past 10 years. At some times it was cheaper to build dual using AMD Athlon MP over single Intel. AMD chips are fine -- Intel is overrated.

If only there was an equally acceptable substitute for Windows ....

[grandgnu]

I was strictly an Intel guy for years, but AMD has really taken the lead with their recent A64 line of processors. I'm a big fan of gaming though, so that's why my next system will be AMD.

Stay away from VIA or SIS chipsets if you can, these are "value" chipsets. That may be why the guy above complained about AMD systems doing weird things. Computer problems can be caused by SO many different factors (cheap and unstable Power supplies are often a leading cause, since so much emphasis is placed on the other components that you wind up with a "400w" power supply that might cost 12 bucks)

Intels are better at multi-tasking, so if you're going to be playing multiple tables of poker and running Poker Tracker, PokerAce Hud, etc. then you're probably better off with Intel. For gaming, AMD is the way to go.

FWIW, I have a 3.0C P4 overclocked to 3.45Ghz and it's fine for most of the newer games. A lot of the newer games are limited by your graphics card, so it really depends on what games you'll be playing.

Right now my poison is the Rome Total Realism mod for Rome: Total War. This game can have thousands of units on screen at a time, but it's very CPU dependant. Once I get up to about 6,000 troops I run the risk of my system slowing down and lagging during battles. Even people with top of the line systems can run into this issue though. Luckily those large battles don't happen too frequently.

Also, sometimes you can find good deals on Ebay, where you'll save anywhere from $25-$100 off the retail cost of various components. This adds up when you're purchasing multiple components for a system. Just make sure the seller has a good reputation and guarantees against DOA parts. Best of luck to ya!

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Stay away from VIA or SIS chipsets if you can, these are "value" chipsets. That may be why the guy above complained about AMD systems doing weird things. Computer problems can be caused by SO many different factors (cheap and unstable Power supplies are often a leading cause, since so much emphasis is placed on the other components that you wind up with a "400w" power supply that might cost 12 bucks)...

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, this is true with Intel processors as well. Using AMD CPU's, I stay with Tyan boards. I have several servers that have been running uninterrupted for 2-3 years now.

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stay away from VIA or SIS chipsets if you can, these are "value" chipsets. That may be why the guy above complained about AMD systems doing weird things. Computer problems can be caused by SO many different factors (cheap and unstable Power supplies are often a leading cause, since so much emphasis is placed on the other components that you wind up with a "400w" power supply that might cost 12 bucks)...

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, this is true with Intel processors as well. Using AMD CPU's, I stay with Tyan boards. I have several servers that have been running uninterrupted for 2-3 years now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have any experience with Tyan, and I don't think the OP was interested in a server.

I have good experiences with:

Intel
Gigabyte
MSI

Some people really love Asus and A-bit, although they're usually more for "enthusiasts" who are overclocking. MSI has decent overclocking and stability in my history with them.

I believe with Intel boards you want an Intel chipset (as opposed to Via or SIS) and with AMD chipsets you'd be looking for the Nforce chipset.

[XxGodJrxX]

After a whole lotta research over this weekend, it seems to me that an AMD will be better suited for gaming, and I am pretty sure that a new system will be able to handle all the poker software I throw at it (my crappy Celeron laptop does after all).

Here is my last question on systems. Rather than start a new thread, I'll just add it here. Is there any reason that I should not just buy a computer from HP rather than a "custom built" computer. I was thinking of buying THIS computer (or maybe just a single core AMD since this one is going to the higher-price spectrum). With the special that came in the paper today, this computer will probably cost me around $1100 with a 17-inch monitor, after rebates.

I went to Circuit City today and had trouble actually finding the specs ON the computer when looking through the device manager and system info. For example, I could not figure out whether the system had a PCI-E bay or an old school PCI bay. The website says it does, but the computer at the store did not say anything. If I do get a system like this, I would probably end up buying a better graphics card sometime in the future to replace the crappy "ATI Express" that comes with it, but I want to make sure I can use it.

My other option is to buy from a place like CyberPowerPC which configures everything how I want it. I probably won't get as much for the same price as I would from a store (the above rig will probably end up well over $2000, so I would have to get a less powerful system). I would also have to wait weeks before it got to me, and I have heard some bad things about their customer service and reliability.

I haven't really been INTO computers since the original Half-Life came out, and it seems that the PC landscape has changed so that I don't really know what I am doing anymore. What would YOU guys recommend?

BTW, I love you guys [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
(but I am not IN love with you guys)