Intel or AMD ?

[[.Q.]]

intel by far

intel is for production (hight end programs)

amd is for games and multimedia

[sacslacker]

AMD is just as production ready as Intel. Not to mention 64 bit support which Maya is expected to support soon.

I'm quite fond of AMD

[[.Q.]]

simple example... take a barton 2500 or any xp up to 3000+ and try to run:

- 3 rar compressions at the same time
- listen to winamp (of course :))
- watch a movie in realtime
- burn a dvd
- surf the net with 5 windows open

my p4 2.4 does it superbly...
my friends xp chockes on him
my other friends xp same thing
my 3rd friends xp he says doesnt need to do all that at the same time

so, if the new 64bit amd has some sort of multithreading embebbed that i dont know of and can do multiple tasks at once (assigning the right amount of computing power to each program ID) then i will start looking up again to amd (i am a former amd user)

[sacslacker]

to be quite honest I've never tried to do all that but it runs Winamp, Maya, Modo, photoshop, and occasionally EVE online all at the same time without much issue. However I rarely have all that crap up at once. When I'm seriously working I'll normally have Winamp, Maya and photoshop up. Maybe quicktime or After Effects but that's about it.

Normally I'm watching my movies on my phatty 57 inch so I don't watch many DVD's on my PC =) However, I've never watched a movie in anything other than realtime.

What on earth are you using rar so much for? =)

[[.Q.]]

what amd do you have.. like i sayd the last 64 bit things i didnt test out.. i`m talking since the age of p4 prescott (i478)

well next upgrade will be dualcore :P

i do alot of encoding... so when i work i encode videos
and hey to eve there (i`m into it too :))

[sacslacker]

Oh yeah! Dual core man. I'm trying to decide when I'm going to pull the trigger on a new dual core hehe.

I'm running an Athlon 3800+ right now. Going to make it last as long as I can hehe.

EVE is great! It's a nice game to have in your background while working. AFK mining or something like that =)

[bjoern]

I bought recently 2 new Maschines.
AMD X2 3800+ (with 2 GB RAM)
my old maschine is an P4 3 GHZ (with 2 GB RAM)

One X2 renders any of my old scene in a Half time, like 6 Ghz :-))
I'm so happy with the DualCore X2... thinking to by a third maschine!

So after the X2's are out, Sorry but :-) Intel is out of race!!

[nitindesign]

AMD dual core WITHOUT a doubt.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/opteron-ws/maya-2.png

[[.Q.]]

p4 still has the most powerfull machine.. and its dual core will whoop ass (not the current one)

[nitindesign]

']p4 still has the most powerfull machine.. and its dual core will whoop ass (not the current one)

Has Intel made a special CPU for you that no one else knows about? :eek:
It's obvious that you are an Intel fanboy. I am not AMD or Intel fanboy...I just buy the best product for the right $$$$.
Currently and for the foreseeable future AMD has the upper hand without a doubt. Anyone who can use google + the search feature on this website will see that it's AMD that is wooping Intel :thumbsup:
Take care my friend :)

[PaulyC]

Q. Is perpetuating the Intel dominance myth. Truth is tons of production vfx houses already have or are going to have AMD opteron boxes, for two reasons, pure power, and low energy i.e. heat, just go google opteron vs. intel or opteron vs. mac, and youll see a bunch of review sites, you can come to your own conclusions, but the facts are out, Opterons new dual cores wipe out everything out there, AND are using less energy and less heat.. But yea only made for gaming according to Q. hah

Bytheway Ive been using my single core dual opteron system for almost two years for production work and havent had a problem yet :) Ive used dual Intels, Xeon's 3.2's at work and didnt even come close to my system in speed, the only system that beat my system in speed was the apple dual 2.7s, but my opterons are only 2 ghz, big surprise there.

[Pooyag]

good to know,thanks guys

[uschi]

we have alot of amd opteron and intel xeon daul systems in use
we prefere amd its about 20% more performance within the same price
for renderings with mental ray

the next problem i see with intel - they only have 3,6ghz xeon without dual core
amd does have cpus with much higher performance - if you buy amd you'll have the
opportunity to upgrade your machines performance pretty easy and cheap
intel won't have daul cores before the first half of 2006 - and who knows on which socket

intel is not a choise anymore - even zoo render has some wired performance ratings

[[.Q.]]

ye.. i read up a little about opertons.. its true AMD kinda took the game from intel.

the chart shows a quad core system

dual core dual proc system.. which is pretty hot for any pocket right now.

i take it back.. intel rulled so far... amd is in the lead right now

[Faber]

lol Q, nice to see someone admitting a mistake for once :)

anyway I thought I would consolidate AMDs lead even further with my experiences. I have used both Intel and AMD systems in many varieties, and nothing in my experience compares to AMD X2 dual core (havent had "time" for dual opterons.. yet, which I understand are even nicer..). Another plus, its more stabile than my previous most stabile machine ever, which was an Intel P4 2.4GHz.

[Pooyag]

ok guys....what do you think about forking over 8k $ over a boxx? cant u just buy the same with lower?it's like a 4gig ram opteron 275 dual and a quadro fx 4400 512MB .... that's the main stuff i guess...right?

[victor]

ok guys....what do you think about forking over 8k $ over a boxx? cant u just buy the same with lower?it's like a 4gig ram opteron 275 dual and a quadro fx 4400 512MB .... that's the main stuff i guess...right?
If you have the dough to burn, and you feel better about getting a tested high-end system with support, then go for it.

But if you want to know whether Boxx is really worth it, just go and compare prices for similar parts at newegg.com or something. You could probably build the same system for a lot less.

Personally, I wouldn't go either way. I feel comfortable putting together my own PC, and I think that a lot of today's "high-end" parts aren't justified by the difference in price.

I just put together a system with a dual core Athlon 64 4400+, an Nvidia/EVGA 7800 GTX KO (256 MB), 4 GB of RAM, and some other nice parts for under $2000.

Sure, dual Opterons would be nice, but to me the difference does not justify paying more than 3 times as much and paying more for a compatible motherboard. The video card is the same issue. I bought the fastest "consumer" card available, and while a Quadro may have more official support and small speed gains in a few situations, mine works just fine with Maya and other apps, and was a lot cheaper.

Essentially, I set up a high end "gaming" box, but theses days the noticeable differences between that and a "pro" system are pretty minor, and mostly come down to support and knowing that things will work. If you know what you're doing or have a friend who can help you, the gap is much smaller.

[Pooyag]

thanks alot Victor,i'm Gonna do the newegg thing right now....Thanks:thumbsup:

[Ed Caracappa]

Whether you're going to build or buy, that one heck of a system you're putting together. Are you going to run XP64? Feel free to give me a call. I'd be happy to give you some advice even if you're going to build it yourself. My direct line is below.

Ed

[Pooyag]

wow...thanks for posting here Mr.Caracappa....Does that include me too? and Thanks for being so kind anyway

[Ed Caracappa]

It's Ed, and yes, you can call anytime.

[Pooyag]

thanks alot Ed...so i'll be calling soon:thumbsup:

[Metoc]

not connotativelybut at the end of star wars III stands that it was (shock) renderd on amd 64...
it's because amd was faster with 64bit. i think 64bit makes a big difference at rendering such big things...
also for ordinary users. with win 64 and lots of ram... and mental ray 64

I've got a P4 ht and it's much better than a non ht.
maya supports ht and at ordinary work (ps and internet...)it's better too.

my oppinon...

[Pooyag]

not connotativelybut at the end of star wars III stands that it was (shock) renderd on amd 64...
it's because amd was faster with 64bit. i think 64bit makes a big difference at rendering such big things...
also for ordinary users. with win 64 and lots of ram... and mental ray 64

I've got a P4 ht and it's much better than a non ht.
maya supports ht and at ordinary work (ps and internet...)it's better too.

my oppinon...
from what i'v heard, Hyper Threading is not much of a improvement in exchange of what you have to spend....after all, intel is not worth the money,which was the conclusion of this thread....hmmm,correct me if i'm Wrong:)

[K. Scott Gant]

I'm on a AMD 64 Dual-core 4200+ and this thing rocks. Very fast and stable.

Not that I'm comparing myself to them or anything, but ILM at their new diggs at the Precidio are using AMD workstations...but they're just ILM right?

But, decide for yourself. People that spout off that AMD is only good for games basically don't know what they're talking about. I personally have no loyalty to AMD or Intel, I just took the best I could get and that was AMD. Who knows, Intel in the next few years may surpass AMD, but AMD is the king at the moment...but unfortunately not in terms of sales.

But don't take our word for it here, go and do some research. Just asking about it on a forum you'll get the zealots out in force on both sides and basically you'll just get in the middle of a flame war.

[[.Q.]]

ok.. to clarify and close this thread.

up until AMD's dual core Intel owned AMD cuz of it's hyperthreading...

so.. if you think of buy a pc nowdays go AMD...

Intel's dualcore get's hot as chilly.. and they are coocking up a new cpu that it's sayd to bring back the supremacy... we`ll see.

oh and intel changed the name of theyr CPU's again (i hate those marketing scams both intel's and AMD's)

[eem]

If you really need the cheapest route possible go intel.
But right now your best value for horsepower is going to be a dual opteron system. You can get dual 940 mobo's now for around $200.Then shop around and get ECC registered PC3200 dimms for not that much more than non-registered. Which in the end basically lets you double the speed of your system for just the cost of another processor. Right now you can find Opteron 246's for $200, which will put you on par with the a single opteron 270 for less than half the price. Plus the socket 940 standard isnt gonna die until after quad opterons have run their course, so in the future once dual core and quad core opterons drop in price you'll be to put down another $400-700 and have 4 or 8 cores.

[amfantasy]

intel I believe will run better with rendering, im not sure about anything else (hub magazine test) but overall amd may be better (not sure about windows mostly running linux)

[lots]

AMD's tech is definately on top in most everything today. Rendering included. While its true Intel had the edge over the XP chips, AMD64 is a definate winner in most everything. Dual core just extends this lead (dual core is just two of the single cores on the same chip.. Though with much tighter integration than anything Intel has to offer).

Intel's roadmaps show that they wont have anything worth while until a year from now. That gives AMD plenty of time to bring updates to its architecture. If AMD can stay on top of its game, it may be able to keep its performance lead. But at the same time Intel is a much larger company, with much deeper pockets. I'd be surprised if they didnt dramatically close the gap (if not take the performance crown back) within a year.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.