64 bit Processors for Home Computing

I know Intel must be offering great incentives to purchase exculsively their 64 bit processor product. AMD has a good product as well. On independent tests, the AMD 64 bit chip seems to out perform the Intel unit. Of course, this will depend on the tests designs. But, using fair tests that duplicate a home user in Games and Multimedia, the AMD seems to have the edge for now.

Most PC manufacturers have started offering AMD as well as Intel PC machines. I have noticed Dell has ignored the use of AMD Processors in its line up. So does Dell have a vendetta against AMD? I have heard that back when Michael Dell and the PC were first getting started, AMD shunned Dell. So, Dell had no choice but to use Intel products. Now Dell seems to stay strictly Intel for loyality purposes in a reverse shun.

Is there any truth to that or is it just a business decision to stay exculsively Intel for the huge discounts?

Maybe this is one of the reasons AMD has brought an anti-trust suit charging Intel with unfair trade practices. In the past, every lawsuit AMD has persude against Intel, from what I recall, AMD has won. So, if AMD keeps on with the same historical trend, AMD should win this suit with Intel as well. But, will this open the tight Intel market to AMD and its 64 bit processor for competition?

I'd be interested to hear any comments that may shead some light on this topic.

Concur that AMD's 64 bit processor is currently better? than Intel's. I too think AMD will win their lawsuit seeing as how they have evidence that Intel is purposely trying to restrain the market for AMD's chips. I expect to see AMD processors edge up to around 10-12% of the overall market from their current approx 8% share. Who knows, if they keep up the blistering pace of their research, they could go even higher.

I agree with you on that. Funny that when I wanted to buy an already- made- for- shipping from one of the manufacturers, none had what I wanted. My son wanted a good gamie machine. I want a good Multimedia machine that could play games for my grandson as well.

We each had to build what we wanted. None at the time had what we wanted. We are extremely happy with the AMD 64 bit chip, in a home PC we each built using a nvidia display card, nvidia nforce motherboard with DFI chipset and a good BIOS that lets us overclock without much heat buildup. One ATA serial 160GB HDD and and IDE 80GB HDD drug over from a retired Dell.

Have played with it since the Superbowl game when we put these units together and we are both pleased as punch. My son for games and graphics. Me for multimedia stuff and games. I really enjoy having two monitors on one system.

Next will be to add a dual core AMD to the mix with the new BIOS just burned to accomplish this. Probably need to boost memory from 1GB to 2 GB.

Originally posted by Josekinuc
I know Intel must be offering great incentives to purchase exculsively their 64 bit processor product. AMD has a good product as well. On independent tests, the AMD 64 bit chip seems to out perform the Intel unit. Of course, this will depend on the tests designs. But, using fair tests that duplicate a home user in Games and Multimedia, the AMD seems to have the edge for now.

That's because the processor itself has 8 more commands at the assembly coding level. This might not sound like much, but it really does make a difference in speed. It has some 32bit integrated math, and this again will add microseconds to each instruction.
www.tommesani.com...

www.ehow.com...

Most PC manufacturers have started offering AMD as well as Intel PC machines. I have noticed Dell has ignored the use of AMD Processors in its line up. So does Dell have a vendetta against AMD?

As of 2005, they were considering using AMD:
www.hardwarecentral.com...

It may simply be a price issue. At the consumer level, not that many people will notice a difference (it doesn't matter if you have a real screamer of a video card if all you're doing is secretarial work for The Boss) in speed but they sure as heck will notice a price difference.

Maybe this is one of the reasons AMD has brought an anti-trust suit charging Intel with unfair trade practices. In the past, every lawsuit AMD has persude against Intel, from what I recall, AMD has won. So, if AMD keeps on with the same historical trend, AMD should win this suit with Intel as well. But, will this open the tight Intel market to AMD and its 64 bit processor for competition?

No, the lawsuit is because Intel paid bribe money to companies to NOT use AMD chips:
www.newsfactor.com...

www.techworld.com...

About 4 months ago I purchased an AMD 3000+ 1.8 GHZ 64 Processor with 1GB DDR, A-Bit AN8 Motherboard, GeForce 5750 PCI-Express 16 Gfx (256mb ram), 200GB Seagate SATA HD and a NEC Dual Layer 16x DVD-RW drive. I got a cheap $50 case (looks cool though) and spent about $650 on the entire setup (excluding a monitor). I have never looked back. Leaving Intel in the dust is great after all the years of problems I had with the P3/P4's! Anyone in their right mind knows AMD is better and their Dual Core processors run circles around AMD as well. Whoever said 64 bit is not for home use was obviously under the assumption that 640kb memory is more than enough

Had I gone with the closest intel offering I would've spent several hundred dollars more on the Processor & Motherboard and would not be able to run several of my favorite games and applications. This machine does circles around windows. It all boils down to the Front-Side-Bus which AMD has perfected by putting the FSB on-die (on the processor) running a whopping parallell 1Ghz (2 Ghz total FSB speed).

It's atleast 1/3 faster than the closest Intel specs in all ways with exception to programs that are specifically designed for Intel and even then the Intel chips are only slightly faster, hotter and again, not as compatible with 32-bit applications. I have had good luck finding drivers for all the hardware and the difference between Windows XP 32bit and 64 bit OS's is astounding. It is quite literally 2 times faster on the same system. Average boot time on my system is 25 seconds from Power-On. Its amazing to see my computer wait on Windows instead of the other way around for a change!

Recently built a system around the AMD 64 bit cpu.

I've been using Intel cpus for the past 2-3 yrs., but have been wanting to build around the AMD 64's for quite some time.

From power-up with a Windows XP Pro disk and a formatted HD until sitting at a desktop, fully installled with Internet . . . 14 minutes!!

This was using an AMD 64it 3200+ cpu (2.0Ghz) on an MSI board with 1Gb Crucial PC3200 ram.

Compared to my Intel 2.8Ghz cpu with a Tyan workstation board with 1Gb of the same ram. The Intel/Tyan system is rock solid and very fast, but from a formatted HD to complete install with same OS still takes about 25-30 mins.

I was absolutely blown away with the overall speed of the AMD system + as has always been the case the AMD is geared more towards media/gaming/video than the Intel.

I built the AMD system for a local business, and it has been sold/delivered, but I DEFINITELY will be buiding another for my use. (i.e. Video editing, Gaming, Multimedia purposes)

Personally, I think Intel has "rested on their laurels" for way too long. Intel has just continued to crank up the frequencies of there cpus, and of course along with that comes the increase in heat generation.

Though I haven't had the chance to compare the new dual-core cpus from either manufacturer, I would definitely be more apt to use an AMD over Intel.

AMD actually incorporates a dual core whereas Intel is using 2 individual cores on the same die.

N E WAY?!

Just my .02 worth :O)

Keep up the EXCELLENT work AMD!!!

p.s. On another note . . . HP (not that I'd buy one) is the only major pc maker currently offering systems based on the AMD 64bit cpus. Yeah SystemMax and a few other mid-level makers. The AMD system I recently built, when compared side-by-side with a comparable HP was done for just over $1,000 INCLUDING wireless card, 17 Hyundai (8.?ms refresh rate) monitor, and a wireless mouse and keyboard. The HP when comparably outfitted would have come in around $1,800!!! As always you can "build-your-own" for a helluva lot less AND without all of the 3rd party "crapware" they insist on putting in.

It is refreshing to hear others out there that have experienced the same as myself. I'm like the rest, if I'm going to have crapware, I want to pick it out and install it, such as XP software. What is MS XP OS at now Service Pack 32 or is it at 35 since 33 and 34 didn't work; seems the SP 33 & 34 would take your PC into never-neverland?