AMD or Intel for running MCE?

Discussion in 'Windows Media Center' started by Vitulla, Feb 12, 2005.

  1. Vitulla

    Vitulla Guest

    I want to build anew rig, but Im trying and decide what
    mobo/proc to get and which company does the better job.
    Please tell me as I would like to start a budget of some
    sort.
     
    Vitulla, Feb 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Vitulla

    magelan_2000 Guest

    I would suggest Intel. I have made a Media Center 2005 PC to sit on to
    of my projection TV. Just for the sake of cheaper (more power per uni
    of money) I went for AMD Sempron 2400+. It worked well (if not mentio
    2 extra 80mm fans I managed to squeze into my case to keep it cool). Fo
    reasons other than power saving, I decided to give Intel a go. I go
    ABIT IS10 mobo and P4 HT Northwood 2.8ghz CPU. I was really surprise
    by how much cooler the whole thing suddenly started to run. I cut th
    fan power to 7v (making them much more polite) and still the case an
    the PSU felt so much cooler to the touch. In idle mode (HDD powere
    ON), I get the reading of 60-68 watts consumption for the whole system
    under load that goes to 110 watts. With AMD idle was 120-130 watts, loa
    200 watts (just pushing the PSU limit).
    I became an AMD person 10 years ago but I have to say that Intel i
    more suitable for cooler PCs and in 1 year time pays back in powe
    saving the initial cost difference


    -
    magelan_200
     
    magelan_2000, Feb 12, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I prefer and have had good luck with AMD - my Media Center runs a MSI K8T
    Neo motherboard and an Athlon-64 3000. However, another guy here made the
    claim that he'd done tests and the 2.4G Celeron and P4 did better video
    (i.e., fewer glitches) than did an Athlon. I don't know which codec he was
    using - that might have made a difference, might not.

    Dana Cline - MVP
     
    Dana Cline - MVP, Feb 12, 2005
    #3
  4. You could have also tried a 35watt AMD XP2400 if you are concerned about
    heat generation.
    For the adventurous you can also lower the clock and voltage on AMD of Intel
    CPU to reduce heat.

    I personaly found that the #1 user of power is the video card. MCE 2005
    require a monster
    video card and just that made my machine loud and hot ... it wont survive
    this summer :(
    I wish I could go back to use a Radeon 9600 ...

    Stephan
     
    Stephan Schaem, Feb 12, 2005
    #4
  5. I'm not sure why it would be the case.

    1) the AMD 64 platform got a better memory system
    2) the mepg2 decoding process rely allot on branching (bitstream/huffman
    decoding)
    and intel design are poor at branching VS amd... The rest of the code is
    really handle by the GFX card.

    The only thing that jump at me is that the diference was more clock speed
    issue and video
    card bus... maybe comparing agp4x without fastwrite to a PCI express card?

    Stephan
     
    Stephan Schaem, Feb 12, 2005
    #5
  6. AMD beats Intel in bang per buck.

    Intel beats AMD in thermal management.

    Intel beats the makers of chipsets for AMD CPUs for stability and
    reliability.
     
    Barry Watzman, Feb 13, 2005
    #6
  7. Vitulla

    Noozer Guest

    Intel's Northwood CPU was much better than the AMD parts. Then Intel
    produces the Prescott and it was a BIG mistake.. Uses way more power,
    produces more heat, and is slower than the equivilent Northwood.

    Today I'd pick up a socket 939 AMD 64 chip if I was building a new PC.
     
    Noozer, Feb 14, 2005
    #7
  8. Well, I'm still using -- even building -- systems with the 3.06 GHz
    Northwood and RDRAM (Rambus memory). The 3.06 CPU has Hyperthreading,
    and although it's 533 MHz FSB is slower than the 800 MHz FSB of
    Prescott, the faster memory bandwidth of RDRAM (1066 MHz, which is
    faster than 800MHz DDR) makes up for some of that, and the 850E chipset
    (P4T533-C and P4t533 motherboards) was excellent. It will generally
    hold it's own against all but the fastest systems which should now have
    the advantage of being just about 3 full years later. But, in fact,
    there's not much difference, the 3-year old system holds up quite well.
    And I believe it's more stable as well.
     
    Barry Watzman, Feb 14, 2005
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.