AMD vs Intel

[jerjim]

Does it matter whether you run Windows 2K on an AMD system versus an Intel Pentium?

Any advantages or disadvantages?

I'm deciding whether to purchase an AMD or Intel system.

What would be the recommended chipset, video card and so on.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

 

[butchrecon]

This is a BIG debate on this and many other forums. You will have NO problem running either Processor with no problems. You will recieve points of view from many users. Some bashing AMD, some bashing INTEL. It all boils down to personal preference and proce. AMD processors for their price are VERY effective and strong processors. Great for gaming and home computers. INTEL are also very strong BUT more expensive. They are very effective for High end workstations and servers. So basically go with what you can afford and read many reviews before making your choice. I reccomend AMD myself. James Collins
Computer Hardware Engineer
A+, MCP

email: butchrecon@skyenet.net

 

[CitrixEngineer]

Check out

http://www.tomshardware.com

for detailed reviews of boards and chips.

As Butchrecon says, it's a matter of taste - both CPUs work well with W2k.

My $0.02;

If you're thinking of going multi-processor, AMD is still in its infancy, since Athlons are not too good at SMP, so go Intel if this is what you want.

I particularly like ABIT boards, especially the KT7 family, which is VIA based.

http://www.abit.com.tw/english/index.htm.

However, I still find that my trusty BX-based (Intel) boards are more stable overall.

Athlons certainly give you the best "bang for the buck". You'll get a faster AMD processor for the money than its Intel equivalent. The Duron 850 is the cheapest way to get a fast processor - overclocking sites seem to concur that this chip is stable well over 1Ghz, with proper cooling. If you don't want to tinker with o/cing, +1Ghz Athlons are still very good value.

As for graphics, popular consensus is for GeForce-based cards. I can't disagree with this choice - especially GeForce2. The newer GF3 chipsets are largely unproven and expensive, but I wouldn't doubt that they too are good.

I hope this helps

 

[River]

It's half a dozen each way though the pricing the AMD appears to be a better buy. I've used both for many years and currently am using AMD on many machines with 100% success.
Cheers River

 

[witness]

at the one grand level, go AMD. You should get a 17" Digital monitor, 256M PC133SDRAM, 30Gig HD, CDRW, DVD, GeForce2 32M Video, and the other accessories.

at the 1500.00 level go Intel. Your should get a 1.3G P4, 128M RDRAM, 40 Gig HD, CDRW, DVD, Geforce2 32M Video and the other stuff.

If you want a screamer get what I have. 1.7Ghz P4, 512M RDRAM,Adaptec 29160 Controller (160mbps throughput) 18G SCSI Cheetah160 X15 15K RPM HD, 64M DDR Prophet II GTS DVI, HP SCSI 12X10X32 CDRW, 16X Hitachi DVD, Intel 6.1 Stereo Interface, Amadeus 5.1 Sound System, Intel 10/100 NIC, 80Gig 5400 RPM Maxtor EIDE ATA100 HD, ZIP250 SCSI, Viewsonic G90f Perfect Flat 19" Monitor, W2K Pro. You should expect to spend. I went Intel because MS writes its software to Intel chipsets and AMD makes theirs compatible. But don't shy away from AMD. Their thunderbird 1.3 Ghz 266 series cpu on an ASUS premium board really smokes with PC150 SDRAM and the same components I have. have fun.....