Intel versus AMD ( or other PC issues)

About Truespace Archives

These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.

They are retained here for archive purposes only.

Intel versus AMD ( or other PC issues) // Archive: Tech Forum

1  |  

Post by Tugar // May 13, 2008, 1:13pm

Tugar
Total Posts: 68
Am considering a new PC when and if I get any leftover money from taxes this year. I've always had Intel machines. Are there any issues with truespace and newer pc's I should know about? What's the better machine?

Post by 2much4U // May 13, 2008, 1:15pm

2much4U
Total Posts: 430
pic
Go for Intel. AMD is way back in the race, and they seem to spit out crappy products with void warranties! ;)

Post by rjeff // May 13, 2008, 1:35pm

rjeff
Total Posts: 1260
pic
I have an AMD and I am very happy with it.

Post by jamesmc // May 13, 2008, 1:41pm

jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
Had AMD's the past few years and switched to a quad core Intel.

The quad core is kicking major butt.

nuff said...

Post by rjeff // May 13, 2008, 2:24pm

rjeff
Total Posts: 1260
pic
Not "nuff" said. I think you are giving AMD a bad rap. I have the AMD dual core and it kicks butt to.. there is nothing wrong with AMD.

Post by jamesmc // May 13, 2008, 2:28pm

jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
Not "nuff" said. I think you are giving AMD a bad rap. I have the AMD dual core and it kicks butt to.. there is nothing wrong with AMD.

I had dual cores AMD's and the Intel quad core is about 4 times as fast in 3D and Video rendering.

Intel was always better doing video rendering though.

Post by rjeff // May 13, 2008, 4:31pm

rjeff
Total Posts: 1260
pic
Well duh james...a v8 is faster than a v6..I mean really compare 4 core to 2 core.

Post by Jack Edwards // May 13, 2008, 9:19pm

Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
pic
I agree with James. I've used AMD products since the K6, but the Core 2 chips from Intel simply feel faster and more responsive. My guess is that Intel handles the multicore instruction scheduling better than AMD.

That doesn't mean that AMD is bad, just that until they come out with a more competitive product I have to give Intel the nod right now.

Post by brotherx // May 14, 2008, 12:12am

brotherx
Total Posts: 538
pic
I've known several people who swear by AMDs but they have always been the linux users who are anti-intel/microsoft. 2 of them, the machines practically melted and died, one of them actually started a fire...I think the cooler failed and filled his house with thick black smoke...


My brother had an AMD and it never was quite right and hot too.


What I've been reading lately, the best value is a Q6600 since you can clock it up to about 3.8Ghz with the stock cooler.


The newer Penryn cores such as the Q9300 run cooler, have a faster FSB and draw less power than the Quad 2.4 but is less overclockable. Also, the Q9450 model, 2.66ghz, has 12mb of cache...costs more though.


AMD kit is usually cheaper but for me it has to be intel, both for the chipset and the processor.


For about 320 euro you can get a quad 2.4, motherboard and 4gb of memory and Ireland isn't the cheapest place but that, IMHO, is awesome.

I personally, when I have the money, am going for the Penryn model, Q9300, 2.5Ghz or if I can stretch, the 2.66 model because i don't like overclocking...costs more but it has a little more punch.


FYI, the quad 2.4 is currently priced at 180 euro - A bargain if you ask me.

Post by W!ZARD // May 15, 2008, 5:41am

W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
pic
Interesting - Different strokes for different folks I guess - I've never had any issues at all with my AMD processors - the first one I had worked so well I was happy to get a faster one when I upgraded my machine. I currently have an AMD Athlon X@ 4600+ dual core running at the factory default speeds - never had a problem so far (18 months) and it runs trueSpace just fine. I recently upgraded my graphics card (GeForce 8600 GT with 512 mB Ram) and trueSpace rocks along beautifully - and anyone knowing my work knows I favour BIG scenes, high polycounts and big textures.


Realistically provided you look in the middle of the range in terms of price/performance either type of CPU should do nicely. It may be worth saving a few bucks by going with AMD and spending the extra on a gruntier graphics card.


For the record I've never had any issues with Intel chips either which I've used a lot but not as much as AMD.

Post by jamesmc // May 15, 2008, 6:40am

jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
What would be interesting as I've seen this on other forums, is to write a series of test for a particular version of trueSpace, say 7.51 and of course choose a side (model or workspace)

1. Mathematic test - Write a procedural program with lots of math to render

2. Procedural Shader test - Make a scene to render with complex procedural shaders

3. Texture test - Make a scene to render with some multi-layered textures, diffuse, bump, specular, etc.

4. Animation test - Make a short animation that involves complex movements

5. Particle test - Make a short particle emitter animation for testing.

The results could then be plugged into a survey (anonymous or known) to build a chart of results.

Also, the results could help the user in decisions on what type of cpu/gpu to upgrade to or buying a system.

Caligari could use the results to get an idea of what computers are out there and draw their own conclusions.


Example:

Post by TomG // May 15, 2008, 10:11am

TomG
Total Posts: 3397
Used to be true that AMD lead the way, I was an AMD fan up to the P4, using Durons and Athlon Thunderbirds. They save me literally hundreds of dollars.


At around the P4 time though, Intel was slightly less good at price / performance, but better at performance so I switched. Since then Intel is pretty much in front in terms of price / performance too now, leading the way on the fastest tech, but also on the most economical. This is especially true if you do any overclocking (which I don't), as it seems you can get a lot out of an Intel chip even with stock cooling (again in the P4 days and earlier, AMD were the leaders there as Intel made it hard to overclock your chips).


There's certainly no problem with either manufacturer of course, and the best thing is to read up and look at the stats and the prices and make your own decision :) Things can change daily! I do like the look of the new .45nm tech I think it is from Intel, the Wolfdale for dual cores, I forget the quad core versions. Though newer, they seem to be the same price as the older tech too, making them a good deal. Prices are coming down all the time though so keep searching and reading!


Naturally all comments here are my own personal comments as a computer user only.


HTH!

Tom

Post by transient // May 15, 2008, 2:29pm

transient
Total Posts: 977
pic
AMD had a good run, but it seems that incompetent management has stuffed that company, and now Sauron is winning.

I just hope if/when intel get their monopoly back, they don't screw the people who put them back there, like the bad old days. I still remember how much my pc cost before amd's rise (shudders).

Post by TomG // May 15, 2008, 3:52pm

TomG
Total Posts: 3397
They dont seem to be (intel) - the new processors like the wolfdale are even cheaper than the old ones, while being better. $135 for a new wolfdale core 2 duo at 2.5GHz or so. I paid $190 for a 1.8GHz Core 2 Duo Conroe about a year ago. So things are going in the right direction!


Tom

Post by Jack Edwards // May 16, 2008, 8:50am

Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
pic
A lot of it comes down to the price of silicon wafers. The cheaper the silicon and the smaller the chips, the lower price they can sell them at.

Intel got lazy with the Pentium 3 and 4s and there really wasn't much performance increase during that time, that allowed AMD to catch up and surpass Intel for a while. Getting knocked into 2nd place performance wise was a real kick in the pants for intel and they ditched the dead end Pentium 4 architecture and combined the new mobile architecture with features from the old Pentium Pro line and developed the core and core 2 line of chips.

Intel has also finally passed AMD in being able to create their chips with a smaller die size, so they are cheaper now as well. Hopefully AMD will rise to the challenge and become competitive with intel again soon since the heated competition has done much for the industry, but I suspect it will be a good 2 years or more for them to come out with a new competitive design.

Post by transient // May 16, 2008, 2:54pm

transient
Total Posts: 977
pic
I really don't care what I use, as long as it's cheap and fast.


AMD have a competitive design now, they still have the only true 4 core chip on the market, they just can't get them clocked high enough. This will change, but maybe too late for Phenom.

Post by Jack Edwards // May 16, 2008, 3:21pm

Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
pic
I'm with you Transient. Cheap, fast, and reliable is good enough for me. :p
Awportals.com is a privately held community resource website dedicated to Active Worlds.
Copyright (c) Mark Randall 2006 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.
Awportals.com   ·   ProLibraries Live   ·   Twitter   ·   LinkedIn