AMD 64 or Intel Prescott

I am building a computer to take to college (go Jackets!) and I have
been trying to research this topic, but cannot make up my mind. It is
better to take the leap and go with the as of yet largely unsupport AMD
64, or try the new 800/1000 FSB Prescotts that Intel has coming out.
I'm not trying to start a flame war, just honest answers to a curious
question. Thanks for your help.

LGA775 is due June, wait for the reviews.


wrote in message
...
I am building a computer to take to college (go Jackets!) and I have
been trying to research this topic, but cannot make up my mind. It is
better to take the leap and go with the as of yet largely unsupport AMD
64, or try the new 800/1000 FSB Prescotts that Intel has coming out.
I'm not trying to start a flame war, just honest answers to a curious
question. Thanks for your help.

On Fri, 14 May 2004 19:49:42 -0700, amd6891 wrote:

I am building a computer to take to college (go Jackets!) and I have
been trying to research this topic, but cannot make up my mind. It is
better to take the leap and go with the as of yet largely unsupport AMD
64, or try the new 800/1000 FSB Prescotts that Intel has coming out.
I'm not trying to start a flame war, just honest answers to a curious
question. Thanks for your help.

I don't understand your thinking. The amd 64 has support for all current
software that a 32bit cpu does. It will also run 64 bit software now, so
don't let an erroneous lack of support enter into the equation. And if you
need 64bit support later, you have it.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

wrote in message
...

" It is better to take the leap and go with the as of yet largely unsupport
AMD 64, or try the new 800/1000 FSB Prescotts that Intel has coming out. "


Perhaps this article will help.
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html

On 14 May 2004 19:49:42 -0700, wrote:

I am building a computer to take to college (go Jackets!) and I have
been trying to research this topic, but cannot make up my mind. It is
better to take the leap and go with the as of yet largely unsupport AMD
64, or try the new 800/1000 FSB Prescotts that Intel has coming out.
I'm not trying to start a flame war, just honest answers to a curious
question. Thanks for your help.

Going AMD 64 is no leap. It's well established as a high performance,
cool running, high value - if still high end, 32-bit cpu. And come
september and WindowsXP64, it will be an even higher performing 64-bit
cpu.
(I took this opportunity to post my 64-bit FAQ, in this newsgroup.
Check it out, for more 64-bit background.)

For anything else than video editing and media encoding, it's also the
most powerful '86 cpu.
Don't be fooled by benchmarks like Sysmark and PCmark. These are
custom tailored around the P4, HT ('04 versions) and clockrate, and
don't correlate well to real world allround performance. Winstone are
the only relevant, application based 'general' benchmarks, IMO.

Intel are uninteresting right now. They're in a bit of trouble. PC
manufacturers are reshuffling their lineups for more AMD chips (except
Dell, of course, who entered an exclusive marketing agreement with
Intel, in order to hit AMD in the low budget segment.). Intel's cpus
are more expensive, as well as slower and hotter.
AMD passed Intel in desktop sales in April (yeah, I'm pinching myself
too).

Intel has been caught out by their own P4/Prescott/Tejas
'GHz'-marketing strategy. This has failed for perfectly predictable
reasons. Heat increases roughly 7 times faster than clockrate (I
think, - at least I've seen this figure somewhere). At the same time,
the technology for running a high clock, will sharply reduce
performance per (clock*transistors), resulting in a large, low
performing, hot and expensive die.
Intel has in fact entirely abandoned pursuing this technology now. But
their new, slower clocked, desktop iAMD64-cpu, "Conroe", (Pentium5 ?),
will not be ready until late05/early06. So until then, they will have
to survive on their brand name, tweaks to the Prescott, and plain
consumer ignorance.
...And 'cooperative' sites like tomshardware, whos "selection" of
benchmarks is very careful. If you would like to see the benchmarks
tomshardware won't show you, visit anandtech, aceshardware,
firingsquad, etc.

The P4's "Hyper Threading" feature is a really nice feature, if you're
into abusive multitasking. This, together with excellent media
encoding performance, are the primary benefits of Intel's P4s vs. AMD
chips.
But you get that in the P4C as well. The P4C is still somewhat
expensive as a 32-bit cpu. But considering the cost of a purchase of
an entire system, value can still be very good with a 2.8GHz P4C and
mature dual channel DDR400 components. Particularly if your main
interest/use is media. If Intel keep the P4C, and lower prices, it
might continue to be the most interesting Intel desktop cpu.

It's still a bit early to say what P4E, Prescott, will eventually
amount to. But frankly stated, it looks like crap sofar! And socket
775, BTX, Grantsdale, DDR2 and 1066FSB are not going to significantly
change anything about that, IME. Those buzzwords an' things, allowing
a ramped up clock and heat production, might make Intel's lackluster
cpu possible to sell at all, for another year. But it's going to be
expensive and hot, - for a soon-to-be-obsolete 32-bit mediachip. Media
apps, as long as 64-bit apps haven't taken over, are the only
demanding apps, the P4E will clearly be a good choice for.

Otherwise, my recommendation is to not invest too much money in 32-bit
PCs. If you go 32-bit, don't buy expensive.
(But whatever you do, don't buy a Celeron for a desktop!)

I'm like very sure, that Athlon64 will be a better choice for most
performance uses. For gaming, flight simulators, software development,
cinematics, science, math/numerics, technical/engineering. And the
primary reason for that, is not just the better performance, but the
space of the 64-bit memory model.

Final words: What do you really need for college? And what is
reasonable for you to afford? AMD socket A is only 32-bit, but they
perform quite well, even outstanding on older software, and sure are
dirt cheap, and so are some decent mobos.
What exactly do you get by going from $500 to $2000? 50% better
performance? 60% even, perhaps? - How many months longer, before it's
obsolete, does that last you?

ancra

wrote in message
...
I am building a computer to take to college (go Jackets!) and I have
been trying to research this topic, but cannot make up my mind. It is
better to take the leap and go with the as of yet largely unsupport AMD
64, or try the new 800/1000 FSB Prescotts that Intel has coming out.
I'm not trying to start a flame war, just honest answers to a curious
question. Thanks for your help.


The AMD64 runs everything that the Intel will run plus it will also do
64-bit versions of Linux NOW and 64-bit Windows (when it is available); what
about it do you mean by unsupported?

After reading what several of you have to say, especially ancra, I have
some more questions but not really in reguards to the processors. Is it
more better (read: smarter/economical) to buy or build a $500-$800
computer and replace after about two years (maybe less/more) or build a
dream rig for like $2000- $2500 and use it for 4-5 years? With
technology and processing power and the looming release of Longhorn it
would seem that maybe the cheaper option would make more sense, but I
am tempted by the geek in me to splurge and go for the expensive
option. In a seperate note to answer what i meant by unsupported was
the lack of true windows 64 bit programs, and the lack of a non-beta
windows xp-64. I realize that the AMD 64 runs all 32-bit programs as
well, but I am unsure as to whether the time of 64-bit mass adoption is
upon us, or if AMD was premature in their release. Any suggestions,
especially if you have a faced this question before of if you have
built a really kick ass cheap rig let me know.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:08:15 -0700, amd6891 while doing time wrote:

After reading what several of you have to say, especially ancra, I have
some more questions but not really in reguards to the processors. Is it
more better (read: smarter/economical) to buy or build a $500-$800
computer and replace after about two years (maybe less/more) or build a
dream rig for like $2000- $2500 and use it for 4-5 years? With
technology and processing power and the looming release of Longhorn it
would seem that maybe the cheaper option would make more sense, but I
am tempted by the geek in me to splurge and go for the expensive
option. In a seperate note to answer what i meant by unsupported was
the lack of true windows 64 bit programs, and the lack of a non-beta
windows xp-64. I realize that the AMD 64 runs all 32-bit programs as
well, but I am unsure as to whether the time of 64-bit mass adoption is
upon us, or if AMD was premature in their release. Any suggestions,
especially if you have a faced this question before of if you have
built a really kick ass cheap rig let me know.

First, http://www.tomshardware.com has a comparision of AMD 64 to
Prescott and cost vs benefit of a long list of cpu, ie, computing dollar.
Bottom line you get more for your money with lower end cpus.

Regarding the question about computing costs ($800 vs $2500).
The complex answer would be for what will you be using your PC playing
cutting edge 3d games, d/l music videos, graphics editing or writing term
papers, researching on the internet, taking notes in class?

The simple answer is the answer to the question of how much more pizza
(was beer) could you buy or how many more movies could you take a date to
with the $1700 difference?

On 16 May 2004 10:08:15 -0700, wrote:

After reading what several of you have to say, especially ancra, I have
some more questions but not really in reguards to the processors. Is it
more better (read: smarter/economical) to buy or build a $500-$800
computer and replace after about two years (maybe less/more) or build a
dream rig for like $2000- $2500 and use it for 4-5 years?

I think so. It seems several reasons conspire to make it so:
1: Age is a far more defining factor, when it comes to PC performance,
than price.
2: You pay exponentially more, for ever smaller gains, as you move up
the ladder.
3: Cutting edge technology is expensive, hot, noisy, unreliable, and
has compatibility issues. Mature technology is cheap, cool, silent,
reliable and highly compatible.

Any suggestions,
especially if you have a faced this question before of if you have
built a really kick ass cheap rig let me know.

You really need to consider what exactly you need *performance* for.
Gaming? - The videocard is the key!

The real economy in, and gain from building your PCs yourself, comes
in the long run, from your ability to upgrade them, and scavenge parts
from earlier PCs. And also in balancing them, the components, after
your needs.

Otherwise, my philosophy is increasingly: "if it works, - then it
works, even if it's cheap".
You don't need to have expensive mainboards from Asus and Abit,
chipsets from Intel and nForce, ram from Crucial, Corsair... That's
safe recommendations to make, so it becomes the constant gospel on
this group and various hardware sites.

ancra

jaster wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:08:15 -0700, amd6891 while doing time wrote:



Regarding the question about computing costs ($800 vs $2500).
The complex answer would be for what will you be using your PC playing
cutting edge 3d games, d/l music videos, graphics editing or writing term
papers, researching on the internet, taking notes in class?

The simple answer is the answer to the question of how much more pizza
(was beer) could you buy or how many more movies could you take a date to
with the $1700 difference?

Not something people who build $2500 PCs have to worry about ;-)