Should I switch from AMD to Intel?
Oct 29, 2002 at 9:26 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 38


Headphoneus Supremus
Jun 22, 2001
After reading acidtripwow's remarks about AMD in this thread:

I am thinking about scrapping AMD altogether - and going with a Pentium 4.

If I do, here will be my choices for a processor, motherboard and memory:

  1. 2.4B GHz boxed Pentium 4, about $190
  2. Intel D850EMV2, $150?
  3. 2 x 256MB PC1066 RDRAM modules, about $240

  1. 2.4B GHz boxed Pentium 4, about $190
  2. Intel D845EBG2, about $120
  3. my two existing PC2100 DDR modules

OR should I just ignore acidtripwow?

If I have to switch, do you agree with either of the above choices? Or are there other P4 motherboards that you should pick over the Intel-brand motherboards? I don't plan to overclock at all.

Oct 29, 2002 at 9:44 PM Post #2 of 38
I believe SIS has some dual channel P4 motherboard P4SDX coming out really soon (mid-november) and others are bound to follow. I would wait for one of the dual channel motherboards and see how they perform rather than jumping on the first option. Second option doesn't look too bad but doesn't make sense since the dual channels are right around the corner.

Edit: actually you should be fine with your old computer for another year or so right? I mean with an xp 2000+ and a ti 4400 should last you until Doom 3 or maybe past it too depending on how you like your graphics.
Oct 29, 2002 at 9:49 PM Post #3 of 38
Dual-channel DDR is definitely out of the question, as far as I'm concerned. My current DDR memory consists of two different modules! And some dual-channel motherboards are so finicky that I'll need two identical modules (meaning that I'll not only need the same size and speed, but also the same brand and model of memory modules)! Not to mention the astronomical initial cost of the first dual-channel DDR motherboards for P4's. I just don't want to pay $300 to $400 on a motherboard by itself with practically no added onboard features other than what's natively supported with the chipset(s).
Oct 29, 2002 at 10:11 PM Post #5 of 38
DanG, I was posting this thread in response to acidtripwow's remarks about AMD in the thread about Sony MDR-V300 'phones.
Oct 29, 2002 at 10:17 PM Post #6 of 38
EagleDriver: If you go for an Intel mobo, why not for the D845PEBT2? It's got quite a few features...

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini
Oct 29, 2002 at 10:39 PM Post #7 of 38

Originally posted by lini
EagleDriver: If you go for an Intel mobo, why not for the D845PEBT2? It's got quite a few features...

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

Yeah, but I have only PC2100 (266MHz) DDR memory right now. So the 845PE chipset really needs PC2700 (333MHz) DDR memory just to perform any faster than the 845E/PC2100 combination. And note that the 845PE doesn't perform any better than the 845E with PC2100 DDR memory.
Oct 29, 2002 at 10:41 PM Post #8 of 38
AMD does NOT suck! I'm a 3D animator and I'm hard as hell on a computer. I can safely say that AMD chips work great, older VIA chipsets on the other hand do have their problems. Of course I like HD280's and Winamp3 so you figure out whether my opinion is worth anything.
Oct 29, 2002 at 10:48 PM Post #9 of 38
Okay, I started this thread in case I have to switch. But I really am NOT switching.

My brother has recently upgraded his PC from a 1.0 GHz Pentium III (133MHz FSB) with 512MB of PC133 SDRAM to a 2.4B GHz Pentium 4 (533MHz FSB) with 512MB of PC2100 DDR memory. He pretty much did what my second choice would have been, except that I chose an Asus P4B533 motherboard for him (he was considering a Tyan Trinity 845E motherboard, until I told him correctly that the Tyan motherboard has only five PCI slots, as opposed to the six PCI slots that Asus offers - and the Tyan mobo doesn't have as many onboard features as the Asus mobo does). But because some of the games that he's been playing crash repeatedly under Windows XP, he's now running Windows Me on his system (yes, I know, Windows Me sucks). But I've found out that Windows 2000 or Windows XP is required for the 845E chipset's native USB 2.0 support to function at all - Windows 9x and Me don't support USB 2.0 at all, so the USB ports work only in USB 1.1 mode.

And guess what? He paid a friggin' $450 or so for his upgrade package - and it still doesn't perform all that much faster than a $320 AMD-based upgrade.
Oct 29, 2002 at 11:41 PM Post #10 of 38
One thing I DO know about the AMD-Intel debate is:

If you are using audio editing or music software, the Intel P4 chipset seems to work better than the Athlons (in general). Apparently, a lot of Athlon-configured motherboards have issues when it comes to certain soundcards (higher end ones, mostly). Sorry, I read this stuff a few months ago when I was upgrading, but I have forgotten most of it. If anyone is interested, I can try to dig up the info again...

Of course, despite all the hubbub, I went with the cheaper AMD chipset, and sprung for a GeForce3 Ti200 (hey, my previous card was a TNT2, so the GF3 is amazing in comparison). So far I haven't noticed any problems with my audio programs or guillemot ISIS either, so I figure it was good money spent.
Oct 30, 2002 at 12:17 AM Post #11 of 38
I wouldn't get RDRAM either, they've stopped making them noe, get PC3200 instead or wait for DDR2.

I was a Intel Man until I got the AMD in my new computer mainly because it was $150 cheaper for the same performance. And it's been pretty stable so far, a few glitches here and there in games but that's due to ATI's early Drivers more then AMD's fault.


(hey, my previous card was a TNT2, so the GF3 is amazing in comparison

me too! but I went up to the ATI 9700 !
Oct 30, 2002 at 12:38 AM Post #12 of 38
This is a tough question. Basically, right now, I'd really consider buying intel. It looks like AMD is having multitudes of problems with their Thourougbred (sp?) B version processors. They're just not getting them out. The way I see it, if AMD doesn't get hammer out next year, and they don't get it out WELL(meaning, it doesn't suck), they will be in trouble.
Oct 30, 2002 at 1:11 AM Post #13 of 38
All I know is that I'm having problems with my amd system, whenever I play music. (the big Via southbridge 686B problem with creatives' soundcards, apprently they left out busparking and now I get clickin and popping sounds in all my mp3's, they even tried to fix it with a driver update only to make my music stutter,[choose my poison I guess]) next wanted system will be a Prescott with hyperthreading and Dual Channel DDR, don't want a clawhammer until 64-bit is mainstream, since 64-bit will be useless until developers do something about it and thats gonna take forever. I might jump onto the successor of clawhammer... what is it? Sledgehammer? hopefully by then AMD would have pushed 64-bit mainstream which I highly doubt it would happen without other major chipmakers making the same move add microsoft to that also.

Just waiting for a hot deal on a SCTB soundcard

if you're just looking for performance/buck then you might as well go for an AMD based system. But if I were you I'd stick with what you have. Darn I'm not coming from the same view as you heh I barely game anymore especailly with a gts so what you have looks mighty darn good to my eyes.
Oct 30, 2002 at 1:13 AM Post #14 of 38
Whether or not AMD can get out the latest Athlons in a timely fashion shouldn't factor into a decision to buy now. The trend is, after a few years, your motherboard is going to be incompatible w/ whatever the newest design is, so you'd have to make this entire choice of AMD vs Intel over again. And my vote is to stay w/ AMD, simply because it's more convenient if you already have one.
Oct 30, 2002 at 1:14 AM Post #15 of 38

Originally posted by raymondlin

me too! but I went up to the ATI 9700 !

Wow... that's like going from stock buds and jumping up to an orpheus! Lucky you... wish i could get 10,000,000 FPS @ highest settings like you

Users who are viewing this thread