Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ati/NVIDIA amd/intel?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Serjor
    started a topic Ati/NVIDIA amd/intel?

    Ati/NVIDIA amd/intel?

    Hello!

    I'm new in those forums, so if this post doesn't belong here let me know and I'll post it were it belongs.

    I wan't to build a new computer from scratch, and one of it's mainly purposes will be gaming, and I'm very lost looking the best linux compatible hardware.

    The most simple questions, ati or nvidia? intel or amd?

    I guess, but it's just a supposition that the best option will be nvidia for the graphic card, but what about motherboard?

    Thank you very much

    PD. Sorry my bad english

  • RadMos
    replied
    Originally posted by Serjor View Post
    It is really true? AMD support is better?
    And with support you mean drivers and so on, or user suppor via forums or something like that??

    The controller of the CPU (AMD) and GPU (ATI) has many patches, and continuous improvement. ATI drivers have fewer problems and better compativility (I have a new ECS GTS240 for her between in the Phoronix forum ) because it gives me a low performance and even do not know why :S.

    But I do not give up on my adventure with Linux is a great OS.

    Sorry for my English is not good: P

    Leave a comment:


  • Serjor
    replied
    Originally posted by RadMos View Post
    I have a few days with my Core i5-650 and also few days using linux. I am very pleased with the performance of my system but it's true: the fact that AMD gives more support to Linux users.

    Too late to think of a system with AMD.
    It is really true? AMD support is better?
    And with support you mean drivers and so on, or user suppor via forums or something like that??

    Leave a comment:


  • RadMos
    replied
    I have a few days with my Core i5-650 and also few days using linux. I am very pleased with the performance of my system but it's true: the fact that AMD gives more support to Linux users.

    Too late to think of a system with AMD.

    Leave a comment:


  • disi
    replied
    The biggest advantage I see for AMD is that you do not need to update your socket/motherboard until ~2012

    On their roadmap, the chip "bulldozer" (4/8 cores) is supposed to come out in 2011 and still uses am3 plus ddr3. Additional to that AMD has ATI and they plan to put cpu and graphics together into one chip.

    AMD goes more and more open source, which is interesting to the Linux community.

    Leave a comment:


  • mlau
    replied
    Originally posted by Serjor View Post
    Thank your for your replies guys! I'm getting an interesting feedback from my questions.

    I stil don't know what to buy, but I've read interesting ideas in this topic and I'll consider them.

    Again, thank you very much, and if there is anything else you want to say, any opinion is welcomed.
    Personally, I'd go with Intel, mainly because of their chipsets.
    In the past I've been bitten countless times by bugs in ati/nvidia chipsets for the athlons/phenoms. Intel chipsets may be a bit more
    conservative feature-wise but make up for it with superior stability
    (and linux support imo. Also, get a mobo with an intel network chip,
    I know they're rare but the realtek chips on the cheap boards _really_
    suck).

    Forget about the benchmark differences between intel/amd, I guarantee that
    99% of the time you wouldn't notice the speed difference in practice.

    Leave a comment:


  • Serjor
    replied
    Thank your for your replies guys! I'm getting an interesting feedback from my questions.

    I stil don't know what to buy, but I've read interesting ideas in this topic and I'll consider them.

    Again, thank you very much, and if there is anything else you want to say, any opinion is welcomed.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    off topic, but really cool....

    Speaking of HiK metal gates, I think it really becomes attractive on SOI. The reason why is ZRAM.... Check it out guys really cool stuff.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    I looked at those benchmarks and the Core i5 750 looks like the best processor there. It has good overall performance in comparison to AMD's processors, has the lowest price of Intel's recent processors and has the lowest power consumption of all of the processors tested, which is what matters in the long term.

    You mentioned Intel's temperatures, but with Intel's systems are drawing less power AMD's systems, any discrepancies in temperature are likely the result of differing cooling solutions. That really does not have much of an effect on the energy efficiency of the chips involved.

    I find it astonishing that you could look at those benchmarks and claim that AMD's processors are superior to Intel's. It is the K8 versus Netburst all over again, and this time, AMD is the one with Netburst; recommending AMD's processors over Intel's is simply dishonest.
    Dont quote me saying something I didnt say... This is what I said...

    If on the other hand, like most people, your price point is $245 or below, then AMD becomes attractive. Not extremely attractive, but in the face of Intels temps.......
    Not extremely attractive, but......

    http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums...ic_id=26872052

    Heres a form where a few guys are talking about there temp problems...

    Anyways if you ever decide to get into electronics design, one of the first things you'll learn is that power does not equal temperature. Think about it like this, a 32nm transistor is going to leak more power through the gate than a 45nm transistor provided that the power supplied is the same. The power that is leaked through the gates manifests itself as heat Now the cool (or not) thing is that HiK metal gates allow each of these gates to withstand a higher amount of leakage before the transistor stops working. All of that leakage added up over all of those transistors is alot of heat.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shining Arcanine
    replied
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    I guess that just depends on how you want to look at it. If you choose to compare Intels $500-$1000 CPUs vs AMD's $245 CPU, then that may well be true. But come on, lets be realistic, most people have a price point. If your price point is above $245 then Intel is your only choice. If on the other hand, like most people, your price point is $245 or below, then AMD becomes attractive. Not extremely attractive, but in the face of Intels temps.......

    http://www.techspot.com/review/195-m...nce/page6.html

    Notice how on highly integer dependent single threaded benchmarks I7 860 has a nice lead over the 965BE. However as the thread count increases Phenoms generally scale better than I7 does. On single threaded FP loads the difference is minor, but as the thread count increases Phnom scales better again....

    The real question is, what do you use your computer for. If your answer is an application that uses a good amount of well written integer code, then Intel will be the clear choice if your willing to deal with the temperatures. On the other hand if you use a well written multithreaded application that makes FP instructions, it will probably run equally well on both architectures, maybe with a slight advantage to AMD.

    The next question is how do you know how your application will perform? Google it. If you heavily use an application that needs the best performance, then chances are that somebody has already benchmarked it.

    Do you use POVray? Do you use Cinebench? Do you use SiSoft Sandra? I mean really do you use PCmark? And when your playing a game do you actually play it at 1024x768 with the lowest possible settings?? Alot of people do use winrar, but what about 7zip? And really handbrake, what about AutoGK?

    And really what the hell is up with all of these integer heavy synthetic benchmarks? I think in the real world most code is heavily FP dependant. Desktop applications like firefox, or the ms Office apps. It seems like Anand and Toms and HardOCP and ExtremeSystems always pick out the most synthetic and most integer heavy benches they can find... In recent years the benches that are being pushed out are less and less real world. You will --NEVER-- run any real workload that even closely resembles Sandras arithmatic bench.
    I looked at those benchmarks and the Core i5 750 looks like the best processor there. It has good overall performance in comparison to AMD's processors, has the lowest price of Intel's recent processors and has the lowest power consumption of all of the processors tested, which is what matters in the long term.

    You mentioned Intel's temperatures, but with Intel's systems are drawing less power AMD's systems, any discrepancies in temperature are likely the result of differing cooling solutions. That really does not have much of an effect on the energy efficiency of the chips involved.

    I find it astonishing that you could look at those benchmarks and claim that AMD's processors are superior to Intel's. It is the K8 versus Netburst all over again, and this time, AMD is the one with Netburst; recommending AMD's processors over Intel's is simply dishonest.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X