Bus Speed Vs Processor

I have question ...

Bus Speed / Processor which one more importance
AMD has more bus speed but processor lower than Intel ...

what bus speed could do with lower processor is it easy freeze when using pc ...

Bus speed is extremely important...but matched with good processor speed!
Can you drive a Ferari on a levee? That's how I'd describe a fast processor with a lower bus speed...power of your processor cannot be delivered to other devices if the bus speed is not complimentary to that. It will simply create bottleneck situations...

And if I am guessing right, the AMD proc you are talking about completely rocks intel's socks off!

None of the figures are directly comparable in any case. AMD CPUs may have a lower clock speed than Intel chips, but that means realatively little. AMD chips complete more operations in a clock cycle than Intel chips do, so they can run at lower clock frequencies and still produce similar or better results. The bus speed on AMD CPUs has been better for awhile now too. Intel has to play catch-up in terms of that for sure...

Without knowing which two particular CPUs you're comparing, it's hard to say which one would be better, but the AMD chip will likely be better if it's at the same price as the Intel one you're looking at...

Right now I have a P4 2.8 GHz Northwood, but guess what, it's an A series, 400 MHz FSB, it's limited and bottlenecked. Even though my next upgrade is only 3.0 GHz(630), and well 4x the cache, I'm doubling FSB, it's gonna be like going from a Pentium III to Pentium 4 all over again. I will be overclocking. AMD's helped a lot by bus speed and whatnot, I myself just prefer Intel, basically because it does the average day to day tasks faster (better implementation of SSE(1,2,3)/MMX, IMO)boots up Windows loads faster, and is a better multitasker due to Hyperthreading. While AMD is better clearly at gaming, Intel does well enough for the average gamer who isn't pushing every last FPS. For me it's Intel.

Unless he wants to go dual-core, in which case I would still whole-heartedly reccomend AMD for their wonderful X2 line. The problem with Intel is that they are more a manufacturing company than anything else. R&D is apparently a little weak because as soon as a real competitor (1/6th of the size) stepped up to the plate, they started losing...

AMD X2 is nice, and is better than the Smithfield Pentium D in almost all fronts. I've yet to see benchmarks comparing it to the Pressler.

:chuckles:
intel is stuck with an antiquated FSB right now that is limiting the power of their processors.
AMD have their nice hypertransport bus that is so fast the botleneck is whatever connects to it, which is good, you dont wana highway with a trafic jam, but its pretty much like a highway with 2 cars every 100m stretch sharin a 4 lane road. lol.

and i have yet to see a program my venice cant run, it has MMX, SSE1, SSE2, SSE3, and something intel doesnt have: 3DNow! and 3DNow+.

if you say: who uses those anyways? my answer is: who uses SSE3 Anyways?

and besides, the main botleneck of the system is pretty much the hard drive.... not a speedy 2ghz+ proc. heck, the old p1s were limited by the hard drives. rofl.

:chuckles:

i personally would get the cheaper proc (AMD), the one with better overall performance (AMD) and the one that doesnt burn a hole through your case (AMD)


yes, intel now has Presler, but they had to move to 65nm to compete vs actual 90nm AMDs. that shows how much though AMD have shoved into their procs. oh and the AMDS run cooler than intel, use less power too, wattage wise, given their lower clock speeds. what greatness! having to move to more advanced technology to compete with "ancient" 90nm A64 X2s.

and the question of overclock shouldnt even be touched, given that each and every processor overclocks differently, that oth can be overclocked, and that not everybody can or even knows what overclocking is, let alone knowing how to performa a "succsessful" overclock.

FYI, i ahve a venice 3000+ and am pretty damn happy with it, and its not the main botleneck in my system. i spend my time waiting after my raid-0 array. yes, my raid-0 array. thats how fast the system is compared to the hard drives. even if you make a simple hard drive twice as fast, its still the botleneck. heck, i think RAID-0 raptors 150gb are still going to botleneck the system.

and another reason to go for AMD:
they only have 1/6th of the market. if everybody rushes to intel, where does the money go? to Intel, not to AMD, and if AMD phases out, what are we left? with a dictatorship in the processor world, intel will have the "monopole", and they will set the prices for their processors, prices will go sky high and then what are we? we let them take control of the planet. im sure everybody wants that to happen... at that point, not only will they burn a hole through your computer case, but a hole through your wallet too.

so all hail AMD! performance at a great price! without burning anything.

Haha. You can't have a monopole. First of all, it's because the word is monopoly. Second reason is because it is illegal. The company would be split up like AT&T was when it held the entire telecommunications industry in the US.

All you need to know is that AMD makes better CPUs. Really, all the specs mean nothing if your CPU does not perform. While AMD and Intel are neck in neck now that Presler is out, I think AMD still has a slight edge. The X2 chips are real wonders too...

90nm vs 65nm? when AMD comes out with 65nm.... hehe. (which is the same thing as saying when intel will own... )
to say slight edge isnt the exact term if you ask me. there are other inconveniences that intel suffer that AMD does not, like having certain chipsets not accepting certain processors. im glad AMD have pretty much support all over the board, im glad they didnt have to make any changes other than simply add a processor when dual core came out, until intel... new chipsets, new power connectors, a world of headache. bah. for now im sticking with amd.

im not ready for the M2 change or the AGP to PCI-e change tho, but i guess we have to get used to these changes eventually. for beter or for worse.

That's the thing though. Intel is more of a manufacturing company than anything else. AMD is better at R&D. That means Intel will always be ahead of the game in terms of manufacturing while AMD will have the more efficient design. The problem is that they can't port it over to 65nm or smaller sizes as fast as Intel can. That mean that they are really close. Intel also dominates the mobile market because they can make efficient CPUs with finter etching capabilities than AMD. Intel chips will always scale higher...

AMD has the upper hand, It looks like Intel will take back over, with the new Conroe core they're working on. We'll see. I'd go AMD now.