AMD vs INTEL

[alch]

i am trying to find out some review that explicitaly point out the difference between 2 of the new processor of AMD and intel when it come down to Graphics application such as rendering and 3D modeling, what is your favorite? AMD or Intel, i would like to know the maximum details or links of reviews.

Examples of application : Maya 5.0, Photoshop, and more graphicals tools.

[meglamaniac]

To the best of my knowledge it simply comes down to which CPU can perform the most operations per second with applications like that (also for Maya and any other 3D modelling app a good OpenGL-supporting graphics card helps).
Both AMD's and Intel's top range processors a pretty similar at the moment so basicly its a case of how many CPU cycles per second your budget can buy you, cos those top end chips aren't cheap.

[morrowyn]

you might wanna check anandtech.com or tomshardware.com they prolly have benchmarks on some 3dmax renders which is the most popular lowend 3d tool.

For good modeling experience, you might wanna look into the highend cards; quadro fx, wildcat, fire xl/gl cards, but a gforce/radeon works well too. (im still modeling on a riva tnt2, gf2 , you have to work with layers to keep polycount down :-)

For rendering, if you use a 32bit app on a 32bit cpu, than the intel xeons are slightly better than the opteron/amd64. But then again, its 32bits.

I dont know on 64bit, since there are no 64bit software renders around.

Its not about clock cycles, i understood the amd cycle correctly, they process more data per cycle, in contrary to intel. which has many cycles and processes a little ( i could be wrong here)
But in the end, both cpu's process the same amount of data. only intel needs 3 million cycles, and amd needs 2.5 million cycles to do it.

You might wanna try blender which is free, maya has a personal version for free, but its very restricted.
dont touch 3dmax. its not very stable. It tends to crash when you want to save. Screwing up your work.
At least that was my experience with max, but its a great tool for learning 3d.

[flapjack]

For me it's AMD, because they have less heat production, they're easier to overclock and I've got a load of bad experiences with Pentium CPUs simply stopping to function after a year and other similar problems, including a P3 700mhz (running at 750mhz) which was cool (35 degrees celsius average) but terribly unstable.

Ofcourse it could just be that I managed to pick a bad CPU for both of the Pentiums I've used. I have to also add that I've got a P166mhz here, not overclocked, that is STILL working perfectly after being intensely used since we bought it, which was back when a P200mhz was top of the line

[djbass]

For me it's Intel, because they have less heat production, they're easier to overclock and I've got a load of bad experiences with AMD CPUs simply stopping to function after a year and other similar problems.


Truth be told though it's very much a Ford vs Holden debate, just choose whichever appeals to you most.

[meglamaniac]

I'd say mostly its a matter of luck.
My 1st generation Athlon XP2000+ (yep, upgrade time soon...) is currently ticking along at 70 degrees C, and has been doing night and day, 24 hours a day, for nearly 2 years. It sometimes reaches 74C if I start playing games and forget to turn the fans up.

As with most electronics, it all depends on if you get one from a "bad batch" or not. My previous processor before this one was a PIII 1.2 (i think) that died unexpectedly after a year and a month just to take the piss at having a 1 year warrenty.

[flapjack]

err... 70 degrees celcius?

that's my system's shutdown temp which I've fortunately only reached once.

70 degrees celcius is WAY to high, get some better cooling equipment man. You're also implying you've got to manually set the fan speed??? Set it higher permanently, 40 degrees celcius is currently my average temp after a day of gaming with an AMD XP2000+ (running at 2000mhz, instead of 1666mhz)

[meglamaniac]

You've probably got the second generation XP2000+.
The original is widely known for being the chip with the worst heat output ever (it's currently only matched by the Barton core XP3200+ I beleive). Serves me right for going for the new components before reading the reviews.

My system is a silence orientated one (it's on 24/7 in my room so I'd rather not have a Boeing 747 in the corner). It's also within the operating parameters of that generation of processors (instability threshold is 75C, crashpoing 80C, permanent damage at 80+C). I've set the board to shut down at 75C so i'll never damage it.

When I build my next system I'll make sure I get a core which dissipates heat a bit better.
However, the fact it's operated at those temperatures (without crashing) for over 10,000 hours shows it has no trouble coping.

Ambient case temp is 32C btw. It's just the terrible thermal properties of the chip.

[Luckeh!!!!]

Yep, the original Athlon XP's were very hot around 2000+ and above. Didn't overclock for poo either, and the core was engraved that left marks on the underside of the heatsink.

I've shoved in a mobile Barton 2500+ set it @ 2.2ghz 1.55V and using the same heatsink/fan combo its running cooler than my AXP2000+ at stock (1.67ghz 1.75V), crazy huh?

[flapjack]

Well, looks like I'm lucky with having waited a while before buying this computer.
Hopefully, I'll be upgrading in the next few months, probably after the holidays. I'll have to see what kind of CPU and AGP card I'll be getting then

[The Zealot]

Ok, here's a few little tips:
1º Don't trust anything related with CPUs in Tom's Hardware. They're an Intel biased site, they even got to the point of making a review of an exclusive upcoming Intel processor (I don't remember wich), who totally rocked. It was later found out that the processor picture they had was photoshoped, and that they used one of the oldest Pentium 4 core(Willamette) instead of the new (Northwood). €€€€€ must be involved. AnandTech is ok. HardOCP is ok as well, but it has made fakes as well in the past, but not as serious as Tom's. Ace's Hardware www.aceshardware.com is my favourite.

2º Maya 5.0 is extremely optimized for the SSE 2 instructions set. Only Athlon 64/FX /Opteron have SSE 2, but their performance is still below those in Pentium 4. So YES, Intel is actually better for 3DMAX/Maya software. But that's just it. That's the ONLY thing where a Pentium should be prefered over an Athlon. For EVERYTHING else, stick with an AMD offer.
One more thing: NEVER NEVER NEVER go for a Celeron. If you just want a PC for Office or Solitaire or a soft crap like that, get an AMD offering. Either an Athlon or a Sempron offering, you choose the budget limit. Just keep in mind that for each Celeron processor AMD has one faster and cheaper.

3º The first Athlon XPs were pretty hot, and in some closed spaces the PC could really heat up, more than the stock cooler could handle. But that was just up to the 2200+. With the XP 2400+ AMD changed the fabrication process and added a metal layer to the processor, so it's the coolest AMD processor of them all, and even most than those Intel processors (and a pretty good overclocker). In fact the XP 3200+ is cooler than a P4 3.2 (Northwood core, not Prescott)! Not to mention the new Athlon 64 who are even cooler.

[iKwak]

I chose AMD just because of the cheaper price when I was building my desktop. No problem so far.

[Chaos]

No trying to annoy everybody, but. Doesn't this thread belong in the sub forum "Hardware and Tech Support" ??