# Poll: AMD vs Intel



## Richard Schollar (Feb 9, 2006)

People,

I'm in the process of building a new PC which won't be used to play games - it will only be used for work-related applications (like Excel, obviously, but also MySQL Databases approaching 100 million records) and for surfing the web.

The poll question is: do I go for an Intel processor or an AMD one?

Richard


----------



## NateO (Feb 9, 2006)

Get lots and lots of RAM, too.

Faster/smarter RAM? Even (much) better:

http://www.karbosguide.com/hardware/module2e5.htm

Mmm, DDR RAM... 

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1115

Using Spreadsheets and DBs? Don't skimp on RAM.


----------



## Richard Schollar (Feb 9, 2006)

Nate

Planning on 2Gb of DDR2 - any more than that is 1) Getting expensive  and 2) Potentially not going to speed things up much as the load on the processor to manage the RAM increases.

This is fairly hypothetical at the moment: I am going to build the computer, but whether I *will* actually have 100 million record databases is not certain.  'Course, I need plenty of space to store the roast parsnip recipes so....

Thanks for taking an interest 

Richard


----------



## Andrew Fergus (Feb 9, 2006)

My vote for the Pentium shows my bias but I can't speak highly enough about the Intel hyper-threading (HT) processors.  They are brilliant for multi-tasking, especially if you are trying to process a large query and still use your PC at the same time....
Just my opinion and good luck!
A


----------



## Richard Schollar (Feb 10, 2006)

Thanks Andrew - I was leaning towards a 630 ('cos it's fairly cheap) - info such as you have provided is exactly what I'm after 

Richard


----------



## Richard Schollar (Feb 15, 2006)

True to form, I have changed my mind, and am now set on getting an Intel Pentium D 920 Dual Core - it isn't _that_ much more expensive, and I think the dual core will come in handy in running multiple databases/instances of excel at the same time.  Thank you to all of you that took the time to read/reply!  I am going with Nate's suggestion of loadsa RAM too...

Richard


----------



## Andrew Fergus (Feb 16, 2006)

Hi Richard
Assuming you are using Windows, once you have loaded loads of RAM (DDR preferably, and in matched pairs to get the benefits of dual core) then set your virtual memory setting to somewhere between 2 to 3 times the size of your RAM.  Set the min and max options to the same value for best performance.
Andrew


----------



## Richard Schollar (Feb 16, 2006)

Cheers Andrew - I shall bear it in mind when i eventually get the Beast built :wink:

Richard


----------



## Scott Huish (Feb 19, 2006)

In the computer I'm using now, I got the AMD ATH64 X2 3800 Dual Core
with 1 GB (2 512MB) sticks of DDR400 RAM and I'm very happy with it.


----------



## XLGibbs (Feb 19, 2006)

With Databases that large it would be wise to have two drives in terms of efficiency  with that many records.

Separating the actual mdb files from the log files and tempdbs, and structuring the data prudently makes a big difference on performance.  I do deal with 100 million records at my job, and query performance speed improved by 80% by addig another RAID+1 array...(although that is for the server.).  

With respect to the obvious, if data is being read from one drive, and written to the other, you reach more optimal performance overall to the database performance

I have no thoughts on processor, but concur with the opinion that lots of RAM is essential.


----------



## Richard Schollar (Feb 20, 2006)

Hi HotPepper

I am undecided on an AMD X2 3800 and a Pentium D 920 since they both produce very similarly priced systems.  I have been checking out reviews on the web, and if it was a choice between an 820 and a 3800 X2 then it would be no problem - the X2 would win hands down.  But the new Presler 9 series from Intel are running AMD very close.  Certainly, if I was at all interested in gaming (I'm not) then the AMD would still win hands down.  My friend who used to work for Microsoft tells me I'm a fool to even contemplate an Intel over AMD (he loves AMD).  I think in the end, whichever way I go, the system is going to be soooooo much better than what I'm currently using that it won't really make any difference whether it is AMD/Intel.  

XLGibbs

That's useful advice - I will make sure whatever motherboard I get can support RAID.

Thanks Guys

Richard


----------



## Richard Schollar (Feb 28, 2006)

Just to prove I change my mind more often than a leopard changes its spots, I have ended up copying HotPepper with an AMD X2 3800 (and 2Gb of RAM).  

Of course, I have to actually build the ****** yet...


----------



## Joe Was (Mar 9, 2006)

I have built all of my computers and have used most of the CPU's, I have found that Intel is less stable and crashes more than AMD, but that being said AMD has compatibility issues. AMD just does not work with all devices or combinations of devices/cards. Intel works with more devices and combinations of devices/cards and whereas AMD just does not work in these situations and Intel works, but may crash some time down the line.

I have been looking into the Dual Core types, but have no direct experience as of yet. Memory does help, but it is not a miracle worker, one or two Gb is all we need for the time being. 64 bit, is the next thing, but is it really here now, how many 64 bit programs do we have.

One word of advice, my current main computer was built using the most expensive, best rated "state of the art" components [I though it was time I rewarded myself and had at least one top-shelf PC], each component/board sounded great on paper and in reviews, but in reality "State-of-the-art" has compatability issues, many things could not work well with each other. So my most expensive, most state of the art computer is not my best [I have actually had to disable some functions, that caused me to buy that component in the first place.]!


----------



## Richard Schollar (Apr 6, 2006)

Finally got my computer up and working after some painful sessions whereby I discovered

1. My motherboard was a dud, and hence was replaced

2. My memory was also dud, and therefore had to be replaced.

From now on, I will pay others (eg Dell) to suffer the trouble of putting the components together.

It has been a useful learning experience.

Richard


----------



## Joe Was (Apr 6, 2006)

I too have gone through the mill on a few.
Biggest problem, using too new devices, Top-shelf and state-of-the-art that reviews call the best, that do not work with other devices. Advice wait a until the compatability issues get worked out!

Sorry for the bad board and memmory, both are getting less common now, but still happen!


----------



## Domski (Apr 9, 2006)

Mmmmm, roast parsnips. It's always worth popping round to the old girl's for Sunday lunch.


----------

