Thread: Intel vs AMD
View Single Post
Old May 6th, 2006, 05:55 PM  
Retired Administrator
Kiros's Forum Picture
Name: Ben
Join Date: May 22, 2004
Location: Albany, LA - USA
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 17
Default Re: Intel vs AMD

Actually I use to be an Intel person. I didn't see why anyone would want an AMD instead (even though the computer I had was an AMD). Then I started doing research. Current Intels over heat quite badly without a special case and a tube. For instance, check this oddity out (clicky). AMDs are actually severely under-clocked to ensure they will not over heat - and if you have proper cooling, you can over clock them like a beast! Intels use a lot of "steps" for each cycle of processing, so that's why they run at higher clocked speeds (3.0 GHz+). AMDs use far less of these "steps" so they have to do more with each one - this means they can't run at that high of a speed. This also means that they can perform just as well as (and usually better than) an Intel while running at a much lower speed. AMD shows it's speeds using a thousands number (like 2400+, 2800+, 3200+) - these numbers are what GHz they can perform like times 1000. So a 2400+ would run as well as a 2.4GHz Intel or better (that's what the + means). Essentially, this means that a 3200+ AMD that runs at 2.2GHz would would run much better than a 2.2GHz Intel (in fact, much better than a 3.0-3.2GHz). The max that I've seen Intel go is 3.6GHz, while AMD processors (the new FX kind) can match an amazing 6.0GHz (the new FX-60 with 64bit compatibility[clicky]).

Anyway, that's just a little bit information. That's why, personally, as a computer technician, I'm completely for AMD processors.

Kiros || Ben

Happiness is not about being perfect.
It is about seeing beyond the imperfections.
Kiros is offline   Reply With Quote