Why is AMD Quiet
by Fouad Bakht - 6/10/05 12:14 PM
AMD makes excellent processors. I wonder why AMD it doesn't manufacture its own motherboards like Intel. Can someone explain please?
Attention forum users: We want you to try out the new CNET forums platform! Click here to read the details. Thanks!
by: Fouad Bakht June 10, 2005 12:14 PM PDT
0 people like this thread
Why most OEMS use Intel rather than AMD?
And if they do use AMD, the ratio is very less. Despite the fact that AMDs are comparatively cheaper and when most of us say "AMD is performance". Is it because of the worldwide successful marketing of Intel and that the fact that AMD has only one fab plant? Please comment!
Intel offers the companies a better deal, lowering their prices so low that AMD just can't compete, to gain market share rather than profit. Also, AMD CAN'T
produce even chips to meet intel.
A few friends of mine who happen to be All-Intel Dealers/Resellers here in the local market told me the same thing as you did. But they did confirm one thing and that was despite well-ventilated and cooled chassis, P4 processors did pose heat problems. On the other hand, few AMD processor based systems which they integrated for some enthusiasts (upon request) never came back due to thermal or any other issues.
So I think this part of the debate whether Intel or AMD is a clear winner, may never be resolved and is unending.
ANyways, just for information sake, may I indicate the number of AMD users in every 200 Pakistani PC owners is 1-2 people. Given a choice between two PCs of the same price, people prefer even Intel Celeron over AMD Athlon64 (socket 939). Well, that does not mean AMD is dumped in this part of the world because here people follow trends and more of believe in the vendor/dealer/reseller/whatever rather than just visiting http://www.cnet.com
Pakistani PC owners, heh? o_O
Maybe poor people perfer Celeron because it's so much cheaper? Seriously, compared to Pentium and AMD cpus of the same performance, Celeron is far cheaper, not to mention the motherboards. You just can't deny that. Not everyone is looking for processors with top performance. For most with a budget, it's the speed/cost ratio that really matters.
and anybody that knows pc's knows AMD out performs Intel at the same MHZ rate.
yah celerons only good in budget pc, mainly for email checkers, web browsers, and the ocassional game of solitair. but they can play games if u plop in a top of the line gpu. so in the end, who cares? :P
You guys are hopeless...
I use a 2.6Ghz Celeron, with a $70 Radeon 9600. All the latest graphics heavy games like Far Cry and HalfLife 2 runs just fine, if not better, than people with much more expensive P4 and AMD processors.
Look at that benchmark again. You're not going to find Celeron at the top, but in many categories, 2.6 and 2.8Ghz Celeron ranks above the supposedly faster and more expensive 2.8 P4s and many AMDs. Compared to processors of the same cost, Celerons will always be far faster than P4 and AMD counterparts.
Bottom line is, if you want to get P4 or AMDs, get top of the line models. There is no reason to buy those that run slower than the fastest Celeron, when you can just buy a Celeron for less.
About AMD, despite more work done per cycle, it's clock rate is just so much lower, there isn't much speed advantage compared to P4 of the same cost.
cant be called crapola no more in defense for you dagger :)
ok i understand that u want to hold ur own against p4's and amd 64 against ur celeron.
the only grip that i really do not believe is this.
''I use a 2.6Ghz Celeron, with a $70 Radeon 9600. All the latest graphics heavy games like Far Cry and HalfLife 2 runs just fine, if not better, than people with much more expensive P4 and AMD processors''
this just cannot be true.
i found an extremely helpful link about the new generation of celerons against presscotts. it was matched with a p4 2.6ghz. and this article prooves that celerons CAN be called budget cpus, but definately not CRAPOLA. its overclocking potential is pretty high. also note that this cpu can be turned into a fairly powerful gaming cpu, when compared to a p4, not an amd
link - http://www.devhardware.com/index2.php?option=content&task=view&id=1508&pop=1&page=0&hide_js=1
check it out.
Thanks... I guess... ^_____^
by dagger906 - 6/12/05 4:18 PM
In Reply to: cant be called crapola no more in defense for you dagger :) by AKonny47
I got the old 2.6Ghz Celeron. Tried to overclock it a few months ago. Got it running stable at around 3.2Ghz, for about a month, on just a copper heatsink. I didn't get liquid cooling or anything fancy, couldn't afford them anyway. Later on, it started to crush after a few hours, so I had to restore back to 2.6Ghz.
This machine was assembled a year ago, and cost me around $600 total. That is, counting in the $250 17" LCD monitor. You can't beat that. Some of the top of the line cpus alone cost as much as my entire computer.
Approxiamate price of parts today.
250=monitor (Samsung 915GN forgot model)
83=processor (Intel Celeron D 2.66GHz 533FSB LGA775)
50=case (Aspire Case)
45=psu (Thermaltake 400watt psu)
45=mobo (Foxconn Intel P4/Celeron D motherboard)
69=gfx card (Sapphire 9600 OEM)
50=hard drive(Maxtor 40GB)
50=ram (2x256 Corsair Valueram)
total is 642.
Now can you say that it's a better deal than the emachines t6212. Now the only thing better in the custom built pc than the emachines is the case, psu, and gfx card. Now you can get a better psu, 350watt for 60. As for the gfx card, the ati 200m is based on the x300se which is around the same performance as a 9600.
There was also a deal back then for a 15" lcd monitor, which retails for $250. ALL of that including monitor & better psu costs $640, which is cheaper than your pc and is more future proof as it's a 64-bit amd athlon 64 and has a pci-express slot for future expansion.
Dagger:"You can't beat that"
I believe i just did.
First of all, that was a year ago! Don't you think maybe things got just a bit cheaper nowdays?
Secondly, 40GB is kinda small for today's harddrive.
Thirdly, That's just not enough ram to play any of the latest games, or perform other tasks comfortably, for that matter. You should get at least 1GB for any new machine.
Finally, it's just not cheaper... -_-
250=monitor (Samsung 915GN forgot model)
83=processor (Intel Celeron D 2.66GHz 533FSB LGA775)
50=case (Aspire Case)
45=mobo (Foxconn Intel P4/Celeron D motherboard)
69=gfx card (Sapphire 9600 OEM)
105=hard drive(Seagate 160GB)
80=ram (2x512 Corsair Valueram)
Total $749 depending on what you salvaged. I still don't see how it can be considered cheaper. I think it's around the same price, but for the value, the emachines is the clear winner.
amd athlon 64 3200+ msi socket 754
1.5 gig pc3200 ram
geforce fx 5900 128mb
WD 250gb 7200rpm ata133 16mb cache
powermax demon case,550watt p/s
2 led p/s fans, 3 led case fans,1 blue cathlode blue light.
sony 16x dvd +/-rw black
sony black-1.44 floppy
total cost $400 add your monitor = $650 i bought it all on pricewatch in Feb. prices actually went up a lot since then.
and I will play ya in DOD anytime! I'm an old man,Ready?
Pentium 4 & AMD XP or Semprom all are good procesors, please don't even mention Celerons here, there is no comparision but price.
this is in general reply to the thread...
just af ew things i've picked up
dagger, your Celeron would be CRUSHED by my AMD, which cost $94, and will crush $150 Intel chips, and with about $200 in cooling, would crush $200-$350 Intel chips (and compete with $500+ chips)
AMD may run slower in clock speed, but considering an Athlon64 3200+ costs under $200, a Pentium 4 3.2GHZ costs $220-ish, and the A64 will WIPE THE FLOOR with the P4 in all gaming applications, AND in most other applications
Intel is in #2, for the money AMD can't be beat
if Athlon64 cost identical to Intel's chips, or more, yes, Intel would make more sense
but AMD chips cost about $30-$40 less
the real price gap appears when you start getting into the 3.6GHZ+ Intel chips
which are expensive to produce (read: Intel has low yields) $650 for a CPU (570J) which will get SMASHED TO PIECES by a $350-ish 3800+...so I completly understand how Intel is so much better and cheaper
also, those pakistani's (weirdest staistic ever, like, Pakistan, it's just random, are you from there? (just wondering, i'm not saying their not technologically advanced or anything, it's just rather random that Pakistan is the statistic...))
their choosing Celeron based on it's clock
your averge user would think an FX-55 is equal to a 2.66D
that FX-55 will kill ANYTHING Intel can offer (including the dual core 840 EE chip)
the reason Dell hasn't moved to AMD is AMD's capacity (this is quoted from some Dell exec) they say their going AMD just to squeeze Intel
if Dell started shipping AMD chips also, AMD would have more than ample money to produce enough fabs to keep up in CPU's
while Intel has 20 some odd fabs, only 3-5 produce CPU's (Intel is the world leader in graphics processors, by volume, they also produce all of those chipsets, and flash RAM/ROM products)
but Dell's word is that AMD does not have the current capacity to take even 20% of their sales
if they went AMD their projection shows AMD would withdraw from all markets, devote themselves entirely to Dell, and still fall about 50% short of what they'd need (the removal is that AMD would be that streched)
Hewlett Packard uses AMD in their desktops, AND servers
Sun Microsystems uses AMD in their non-SPARC servers
Compaq uses AMD in their desktops
and I believe AMD is avliable in some IBM servers
AMD is used in a lot of server applications, as Opteron is just that good, and Sempron and AthlonXP are good performance for the money...
making the claim that your Celeron 2.6GHZ and Radeon 9600 can smash higher end CPU's and systems (this is at dagger) is rather insane
my system would fit into the "higher end and top shelf systems" class (only because of my graphics and sound cards, my motherboard is top shelf, but it's AthlonXP)
and my computer would whip yours, easily
in gaming the CPU doesn't determine much
i'll use my two computers for example here...
I have two CPU's avliable to me
my AthlonXP 3200+ (Which i'm currently using right now)
and my Pentium 4 2GHZ (Willamette, and it's not being used at the moment)
I have two graphics adapters avliable to me also, my GeForce 6800GT 256MB and my GeForce FX 5900XT 128MB (well, I also have a few value level AGP cards, and some PCI cards, and an old 3dfx Voodoo2 12MB, but i'm just talking recent generation stuff)
now my Pentium 4 and 5900XT would obviously make the smartest pair for a second computer (over one of my 16, 32 or 64MB cards)
if I were to put the 5900XT + AthlonXP together
and the 6800GT + Pentium 4 together
the Pentium 4 would win, by a huge margin, and would still anhilate you in gaming performance
in gaming the graphics card is all that matters, assuming the CPU is 1.8GHZ or higher
I know plenty of people with CPU's on the slow side, who have a decent graphics chip in their system, and their gaming performance is just flat out amazing considering the rest of their machine
i'm not saying sticking an AthlonXP 1400+ with an X850XT Plat. E or something like that is logical
but i am saying that in gaming that system (XP 1400/X850XT PE) would be more than capable of most games
it would be rather pointless for anything else though
if the CPU is 1.8GHZ or faster/equivalent to 1.8GHZ
if the graphics card is able, the gaming is perfect
my CPU is considered outdated, and it's using a "dead" platform
equivalent to a 2.8GHZ Pentium 4 Prescott (with HT)
now your claim that AMD is so slow that it can't keep up
it's entirely bogus
my chip can and does keep up with the best of them
most people I know have Intel, excluding that my graphics card has 4x the pipes, 2-3x the vertex units, twice the bus interface, and 2-4x the RAM
my CPU still competes and beats them
a Celeron isn't anything amazing
a Celeron D isn't really either...it's more capable but, not amazing
your CPU is fine for gaming, but if you had identical specs to my machine, excluding the CPU
mine would always have about 2 FPS lead on yours (that is how little it matters between CPU's, I run about 300 under in 3D03 over a THG bench using a $500 Athlon64 4000+, in 3D05 however I fall short by about 600 due to my chip's issues with software 3D (but I seriously would shoot myself if I tried to run a game like Half-Life 2 in software 3D (that's where the gfx card does essentially nothing...))
AMD's are excellent for anything you can do with a computer, and provide more than enough power
while an Intel would be nice
most performance tweakers, serious gamers, and OC'ers alike with Pentium 4's run them at 4GHZ, and they are competitve with 2.5-2.7GHZ AMD64's, and 2.8-3.0GHZ AMD AthlonXP's (yes, 3GHZ is possible on an AthlonXP, albiet hard, still very possible)
i'm just saying that AMD isn't as weak as you'd like them to be
your Celeron couldn't anhilate ANY of AMD's Athlon64 line (with the exception of possibly the very rare Mobile series chips released at it's inital launch (like A64 2500+'s, which were just amazingly slow (hence their month long retail life))
the slowest Athlon64 is the 2800+
which is around a 2.8-3.0GHZ Pentium 4 (about equivalent to my CPU)
slow P4's might be killable
but comparable P4's to Athlon64's (2.8's and above)
they would just kill your chip
the Celeron is a cut down Pentium 4
it's a Pentium 4 which lacks HT, and has less cache (Which does affect your performance)
i'm not trying to cut down your rig
i'm just trying to let you know what it'd compare to...
now if you wanna come back and tell me my rig probably cost twice as much as yours, and that in terms of what they can play/do, yours is equivalant (in that you can play all the games I can) i'll tell you your right, but wrong
it cost more actually (for the total cost of you CPU, I could get a portion of my display set-up (3 monitors when completed later this summer, $300 for the 6800GT alone, $160 for the main mointor, around $140 for the secondaries, and around $40 for the other video card)
but i'll tell you (just as something you'll discover eventually) i've been in your shoes, and had the "i've spent under $1000 and can play any game, i'm happy" position
and it's not bad to be in that position
but once you get to game on a machine that not only runs the game, but runs the game at any resolution, and quality setting, a machine where you can just set the settings as high as the monitor can take you, as high as the speakers can take it, and it still runs at 40 FPS+, you'll never go back to the value build mentality (at least not easily)
well, that's just my comments/thoughts on this
if i wore a hat, i would take it off in your honour!
i didn't know there was that much to know about CPUs
That Was an Impressive Show!
Well, Ozozs, I really appreciate your views on it. I guess I better not waste any more time on deciding whether to go for AMD Athlon64 or Intel. The best thing about AMD, which you all will agree, is that it doesn't lead you to obsolecense. You buy a mobo and a decent chip+GPU and your pretty much in the game for next couple of months or even more (depends), but unlike Intel, one morning you wake up, walk to the local computer store, get a Pentium 4 based system, come back proudly with it and the next morning you come to know that Intel has announced another "thing". Like the P4 6XX series with EM64T can be supported by 915/925 chipsets, while I was considering that, another Pentium D surfaces with that 8XX series chips supported only by 945/955 chipsets and then we have a Pentium Xtreme Series chip again supported by 945/955 series chipsets. Mannnn! this is frustrating. For a CPU change/shift/upgrade, you have to forcibly go for a new mobo too. Isn't this agonizing?? Price difference is huge and performance, sorry to say, is not as much as you expect as against what is advertised by Intel. On the other hand, with a socket 939 mobo, you can get an Athlon64 running and even an FX-55 series too and maybe the X2 also. With AMD, it seems, you dont lag behind and upgradeability is always "NO PROBLEMO". The reason from AMD might be anything for this fact BUT whatever it is......its good for all of us.
Secondly, most of the pro-Intel guys that I have met (I used to be one too), always bragg about an issue that AMD heats up fast and furious on intense gaming or heavy applications whereas Intel Pentium4 remains pretty cool. I am yet to evaluate an Athlon64 under such circumstances but I believe this overheating part suits Intel more. Any comments?
That Was an Impressive Show!
Yes it was!!
On the heat issue, Yes 2~3 years ago AthlonsXPs ran hotter than P4 of THAT time peroid.
Todays P4s run much hotter than the current AthlonXPs or the Athlon64s.
It seams that people don't update their info. John
I had some spare time and just read all the posts in this topic... As a CEO for an OEM company based in Colombia, S.America, I would have to say that AMD is FAR better than Intel regarding performance/price. Ever since the Athlon chip was released, it has gotten much better reviews and awards on different tech sites, with respect to more-expensive higher-MHZ Intel CPUs. Same story for AthlonXP and Athlon64/FX...
AMD has a better usage of its cache and its MB's data buses. This allows the CPU to process more data per cicle, running at lower speeds without compromising performance. In fact, different Athlon models run at the same clock speed, but are marked with different #+, because of the processor's internal design, which is far more efficient than Intel's. Intel used to compete for having higher Ghz CPUs, which is like trying to drive faster by increasing only the RPMs on a car (same gear, engine, etc).
Not only does an AMD processor costs about 30% less than a comparable Intel model, but AMDs achieve their maximum performance on practically any motherboard/mem config, whilst Intel needs to be assembled on MBs with high-end Intel chipsets, specific memory brand/type, etc...This rises the overall system cost by about 40%. But ownership cost is not all. As mentioned before, it is very easy (and affordable) to 'squeeze' out every drop of performance out of an AMD system, and, due to their high compatibility, there is a wide range of video cards, memory, etc to choose from. This is the main reason why AMD doesn't need to produce their own MBs; any brand with a VIA of nVidia chipset will suffice.
Although newer AMDs are clearly winners when it comes to gaming, we have assembled specific-usage workstations with AMDs for other tasks including multitasking environments, video editing, data servers, and frankly we have been amazed at the results, when compared to P4s.
As another member mentioned, AMDs do tend to outlast Intel CPUs. Even simple driver updates for the system's chipset (specially VIA)or BIOS updates will have a big impact on the system performance. Also, we have noticed that AMDs are more likely to run software developed after the processor, without HW updates. A specific case was migrating a lot of old systems to windowsXP, or to newer Norton versions.
If you do decide to upgrade a component such as the memory or graphics card, the difference is going to be more noticeable on an AMD platform. Until recently, my personal home desktop was an Ahlon 1.2Ghz with 512DIMM and an AGP Geforce 2 GPU. It run very smoothly every application I needed, including NFS underground with low graphics mode. I retired it to make way for my new MSI Kt8Neo4 Plat. SLI/Athlon64 3500+ system just because I felt that I wanted (not needed) a system that wasn't 4+ years old. Actually, I've tested my old system against newer laptops with P4 CPU...shame on Intel...
Finally, as a system assembler, I want to say that Intel tends to make long-term contracts with OEMs to sell Intel Processors exclusively, in turn for better prices and almost a retail supply, which has been very beneficial to Dell, that doesn't have a warehouse full of components but rather buys the estimated exact units to be sold. I think that their exclusivity contract with Intel ends the first quarter of '06, and surely hope that they will offer systems on the AMD platform.... Sorry for the length of my post, hope it helped....
BTW: I also enjoyed dagger's ass-kick...
(NT) (NT) already been discussed here boys :P
wow...you are amazing
wow you must have spent a lot of time on your post. I completely agree with you. The most important things in gaming are the video card and ram. If the other hardware is decent you should be able to game well. Also, I completely agree with you on saying AMD is better than Intel.
shopping for inexpensive computer
Where can I get the best buy on a computer for general office work at home.? I'm thinking Athlon. I like what I hear from people who have them and I had a good one years ago.
Frys, Dell, E-machine,e-bay? or?
Also I need an inexpensive office program, just a good spreadsheet, database and word processor.
Thanks for any suggestions.
(NT) (NT) eMachines T6212
That's a AMD 64 machine which from what I've seen needs a ton of Ram. Furthermore, "eMachines" is owned by Gateway now, and the future of "eMachines" is unclear. Furthermore, they are problematic in many ways (for example, if you work in a corporation I've read that they're definately NOT recommended EVER. Furthermore, some of their machines aren't even tested for OS compatibility (so if, for example, you get MS XP Home and put Pro on it you won't be supported because they didn't test much). I don't know too much about the T6212 though, but the other thing about 64 bit processors (like the T6212) is that they hardly have any batterly life away from the electrical outlet. That's why I recommended the cheap Dell system (get one with at least 4 hours) and the pre-liminary precautions, which, SHOULD BE TAKEN ON ANY COMPUTER THAT YOU BUY AND RUN WINDOWS ON. Another issues is that though Windows (if you buy the 64 bit edition) "does" support 64 bit processing, it does have issues. Personally I won't move to 64 bit unless I use Linux on that machine, and eventually I'll use 64 bit with Windows too, but not for several years. I gave the recommendation I did to keep inline with what you asked for and with your interests in mind. Take care!
"Furthermore, some of their machines aren't even tested for OS compatibility (so if, for example, you get MS XP Home and put Pro on it you won't be supported because they didn't test much). I don't know too much about the T6212 though, but the other thing about 64 bit processors (like the T6212) is that they hardly have any batterly life away from the electrical outlet"
Wth? Windows Pro can be supported by a computer that can support home. You would encounter problems if you don't install all your drivers which oems don't give you, that's exactly why you don't reformay oem machines especially LAPTOPS. An athlon 64 or pentium 4 won't give you much battery life.
A Little Late
The E-Machine is a good choice. It is a Editor's Recommended buy from Maximum Pc magazine for Overall quality and features. No matter what brand name you buy be aware of a few things.
1. Support for almost all brand name computers suck. If you have a problem, you will be on the phone for hours trying to get the simplest problem fixed.
2. No brand name computer comes with more than a trial edition of Office (which can be downloaded or ordered on CD through Microsoft by any one) which means it will run out in 90 days and anything created in that program will no longer be viewable.
3. They also come with 30-90 day trial subscriptions to anti-virus or internet protection software. The 90 days goes by fast and leaving your PC unprotected for even a few days can result in disaster. We had a customer who bought a top of the line Athlon64 laptop from Compaq. This thing had everything; wide-screen, smart card reader, DVD- burner, built in wireless etc.
Her Internet protection suite expired in 30 days. On the 36th day after purchase, she came in with 1400 spyware/ adware programs and 15 trojan/ viruses. It was so infected, removing them brought on the inevitable .dll errors and system crashes. It wound up being more cost effective to reformat.
4. A good cheap alternative to Microsoft is Open Office Suite. It has a word processor, spreadsheet and presentation software. If you just need a word processor Abi-word is free and can read and write in Word format. www.abisource.com
If you want "inexpensive" then you can buy a Dell laptop pretty cheaply. Dell isn't the best company around, but most laptop companies stink anyways. Just get a Dell laptop for under or around a thousand (but with good features though, and at least 1 Gig of Ram, since Windows will be getting more Ram-intensive with longhorn; I'd also recommend you select a decent graphics card. If you want REALLY cheap office software, get OpenOffice from openoffice.org (absolutely for free!). There's a security patch you'll have to apply (instructions on site) but it's not really that pressing anyways. It also writes to Microsoft Word's "doc" format as well. You'll have to do a little tooling around with your menu bars and buttons but once done it's really easy to use. Also, when version 2.0 (or 1.9+, whatever they call it) that security issue (highly unlikely to affect you) will be automatically taken care of. The suite includes an excellent word processor, presentation software (like powerpoint), spreadsheet program (replaces excel), drawing program, "calc" and more; it's also not bloated, runs well, is loaded with ubber delightful features (you find more as you go) and so on. If you find a good online documentation source you'll become very productive using it. i use Windows and Linux, but as soon as I can in college I'll be using mostly Linux. For now, I have to wait, but there are really great, cheap (or FREE!) programs out there. OpenOffice isn't like Linux or anything where you need to know a bunch of commands or anything like that (so don't worry).
If you need more advice or help, then post, and if I see the request again I'll do my best to accomodate you.
[Words of caution about Dell: You may want to call Dell when you receive the laptop to re-install the OS and programs, so that when you install the OS you can partition the HD. MAKE SURE YOU'RE VERY CLEAR YOU WANT TO CREAT PARTITIONS WHILE SETTING UP THE OS AND HAVE SUPPORT GUIDE YOU. Then, they'll guide you through a bunch of driver downloads/installs and restarts. Just because you have a disc labeled "drivers" doesn't mean it has the right ones. Then, get a good registry cleaner. There are free versions, but I recommend "registry mechanic" which is reasonably priced and worth it. Then, also, download ad-aware se from: http://www.lavasoftusa.com/support/download/ and spybot search and destroy from: http://www.safer-networking.org/en/index.html. You'll run these programs every few day (or least once a week). You'll also want to use registry mechanic at least once a month (and after each time you un-install a program). Make sure you have good anti-virus too. I recommend McAfee, though it'll slow your startup and show a flash screen. Not just their antivirus, but their firewall too, and the program I most like is their "Privacy service" (get it and you'll see why while browsing).
[Back-tracking:] Make sure you leave about 4 gigs for MS Windows on one partition-(three for the OS and one for virtual HD ram). The rest of your HD you should keep for folders or maybe if you want to go extreme make sections for different file types (I don't recommend this with anything below 80gigs, and if you do mostly one thing you should probably limit it to just one section for files).
This will all take a while, but it's worth it. Also, to avoid the MS internet explorer security issues, don't use it if possibly-try something like firefox. It's not impenetrable, but not so widespread either. You can get it at: www.mozilla.org. Whatever you do don't use MS Outlook-it's security holes wrapped in security holes in sheep's skin.
I gave all this extra advice just so, hopefully, you shouldn't have to deal with Dell tech support much. Their not always bad, but sometimes it can be a real pain.
Good luck, if you follow this you should remain (besides the time involved) relatively pain-free!
I just wanted to let you know how strongly I agree with you. I own a small computer business and build
exclusively AMD systems. I am the only computer store in the area that has AMD posters and marketing material in and around the store.
It is surprising how many people come in and ask me how an Athlon64, Barton core or Sempron CPU compares to an Intel Pentium. Most people that ask, usually follow the question with a statement that they thought AMD was the cheap alternative to an Intel.
While that may have been true in the old socket 7/ K6-2 days, this is certainly not the case now. I found quite a loyal following just by being an AMD builder/ provider. No matter what side of the AMD/ Intel question a person stands, you have to appreciate what AMD did for the industry. CPU progression ( clock speeds, FSB, L1 + L2 cache etc.) was given a real shot in the arm when AMD joined the industry. Intel was dominating the market with no real competition and no real desire to improve on their product. You simply had to buy Intel and accept whatever they were offering at whatever price they decided to charge.
Releasing the Athlon series really sent a message to Intel. Those CPU's won almost every award there was available; Best engineering, CPU of the year and many others ( I have the list tacked on the wall at the store). From that point on, with few exceptions, AMD has dominated the performence market. Link-
Since the Athlon, CPU development progressed at an incredible rate and still continues. This relates to nothing but good news for computer enthusiasts, builders and even casual users. The CPU's drive the industry forcing motherboard, chipset, ram, video card, etc. manufacturers to design better products to take advantage of the growing power potential present in the latest processors.
Now, due to the competition, it is possible to build or buy an incredibly powerful computer for a
relatively inexpensive price. I am not talking about a $299 Dell (by the way, try ordering one of those and see what the price tag winds up being when you get through with the " Dell recommended upgrades").
I am referring to a real computer like the Athlon64 3.2 Ghz, Serial RAID array, 256 Radeon X800Pro, 2 Gb PC3200, 16x +/- DVD burner that I recently built for around $1000. This type of PC can do it all; server, office work, gaming, video editing, anything!
When Intel released their P4 socket 775 CPU, I built 2 systems. One system had the P4 w/ Hyper-threading 3.0 Ghz, 1-Gb ram, 128 mb Nvidia PCX5900 (PCI Express), SATA 160Gb w/ 8 Mb cache.
System 2 had an Athlon64 3.0 socket 754 (not 939!),
512-Mb ram, 128 mb Radeon 9800SE (AGP), SATA 160Gb w/8 mb
All peripherals were the same (DVD burner, floppy,
power supply, even motherboard manufacturers (MSI)) I then benchmarked them both using SiS Soft Sandra, FutureMark PCMark04 and 3DMark03 (05 wasn't out yet) and the Athlon won the overall tests with half the ram and it cost less to build.