AMD vs Intel thread

Which do you prefer

  • AMD

    Votes: 36 83.7%

  • Intel

    Votes: 7 16.3%
  • Total voters
    43
R

RTFMish

Guest
OK, Pick your favorite brand and EXPLAIN why you picked it.. What details appeal to you, what do you like most about the product, and why you like it.

I pick AMD, and here it goes..

I like AMD because they are very affordable, and very overclockable.. Every new product from AMD kicks it up a notch. I really like the mobile XP's with Barton cores, the 2500 gets sent to you clocked at 1.83ghz and people are overclocking it all the way up to 2.70ghz on air cooling, maintaining temps below 50c. I like the fact that I can go out and buy a mobile XP right now for $88.00 and overclock it to speeds of a intel that has a price tag in the $150.00-$200.00 range.. This is obviousily because mobiles are unlocked, but still.. They can out perform those expensive intels, and I have proof of that to..
http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD03MjImdXJsX3BhZ2U9MQ==

I didn't really feel like writing about the Athlon64's.. Someone can do that for me ;/
Your turn!
 
amd = price/performance > intel =ghz/dollar
 
AMD
- Can buy the same performance for a less.
- Can buy a better product for the same money.
- Inovative and listens to the industry/customers
- Designed on of the best CPU cores (K7) that has lasted on Socket A for 5 years.
- Followed it up with an even better core (K8) that could last for another 5 years.
- Uses the same platform/socket for years...(unlike the competition)
- Power Consumtion
 
In the end, you pay the extra $100+ for Intel's name.
 
I have an intel but i never in hell gonna have one again.
 
Before the Athlon 64: Intel
After the Athlon 64: AMD

Why? The P4's with an 800MHz FSB were faster (performance, not just GHz) and cheaper than any "comparable" Athlon XP (you could get a P4 with performance equal to a 3200+ for about half the price). Now, AMD is back on top.
 
AMD. Simply put, better company. Intel purposefully made inefficient processors to sell newer ones. I don't support companies that don't support their customers.
 
amd sucks....


at making shitty overpriced processors.

intel still aren't doing too bad though. those who overclock their p4s and get beyond 1000fsb have some sweet performance all around
 
AMD - it's the non-commercial CPU manufacturer. I hate Intel and their capitalist ways.
 
At my work I have a 2,0GHz P4, at home a 2,08 Ghz AMD, guess what....

PC at home is 4 times as fast as the one at work. That's just in windows using office etc. With games mine is 10 time as fast(GeForce ti4200)! O.k., the one at work has a Matrox Millennium G550, but still.

So I think it's clear, go AMD! Maybe I'll replace my GeForce with a Ati, not sure yet.
 
Pobz said:
AMD - it's the non-commercial CPU manufacturer. I hate Intel and their capitalist ways.
Click to expand...
True!

Instead of revolutionizing and remaining competitive Intel have chosen to exploit every last cent out of the market.

Thankfully AMD just say "**** it" and bring out 64 bit chips to get the ball rolling.
 
FictiousWill said:
I'm about to order a $250 64-bit processor. 'nuff said.
Click to expand...

Are you getting Far Cry bundled with it? Deal at newegg ;/
 
meh I picked intel cuz you can buy a 2.8 C for cheaper than an amd at comparable stock speeds...plus intel does somethings better...such as video and animation...hyperthreading is great
 
I voted for Intel. Simply because I had an AMD Duron several years back and was unsatisified at the time. I was unexperienced at deciding which processors to purchase, and I soon found out that Duron processor were low-end on the gaming spectrum and AMD later discontinued manufacturing them.

I now have an Intel Pentium 4 and am pretty much fine with it so far. But what I am really waiting for is the Pentium V (but I guess that is a long ways down the road :rolleyes:), or the AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 when I actually get that kind of money.
 
User Name said:
I voted for Intel. Simply because I had an AMD Duron several years back and was unsatisified at the time. I was unexperienced at deciding which processors to purchase, and I soon found out that Duron processor were low-end on the gaming spectrum and AMD later discontinued manufacturing them.
Click to expand...

you bought a duron for gaming? :LOL: small cache, good for servers.

edit: and werent they discontinued like.. this year? they are awesome cpus.
 
Hey, I was young and very unaware and new to gaming on the PC. I didn't know. :rolling:
 
yeah but thats not a good reason for going with intel over amd.
 
Like I said. I didn't know shit about gaming on PCs or any specifications about which hardware is best. At the time all I knew was stuff about Ghz and RAM, that's it.
Now, I know almost everything there is to know about PCs.
 
yeah but it seems like if all you knew about was ghz youd have gone with a pentium. particularly someone who is 'young and unaware' wouldent buy an amd processor. not trying to grill you its just kind of interesting.
 
Hey, at least the sales-person made it seem logical and the best buy.
Man, sales-people sure do a good job at persuading.

Look, it's the past now. I can't change it. It was a stupid buy and I regret it now. But it was back in 1999 and I needed a PC desperately. So, I got that one. I thought AMD Durons were as good or even better than Intel Pentium IIIs.
 
User Name said:
Hey, at least the sales-person made it seem logical and the best buy.
Man, sales-people sure do a good job at persuading.

Look, it's the past now. I can't change it. It was a stupid buy and I regret it now. But it was back in 1999 and I needed a PC desperately. So, I got that one. I thought AMD Durons were as good or even better than Intel Pentium IIIs.
Click to expand...

lol i dont see why youre mad about it, you got a good processor. if you kept it, you could definatly make it useful still. no it wasent a stupid buy.
 
gh0st said:
lol i dont see why youre mad about it, you got a good processor. if you kept it, you could definatly make it useful still. no it wasent a stupid buy.
Click to expand...
Then why did you say this?...
gh0st said:
you bought a duron for gaming? :LOL: small cache, good for servers.
Click to expand...

and this...?
gh0st said:
yeah but thats not a good reason for going with intel over amd.
Click to expand...
 
just because a duron isnt the best with games doesnt mean its a bad processor. or a stupid buy.

and when i said "it" wasent a good reason for going intel over amd, i meant in the sense that youve only really tried something from amd that you werent expecting, so naturally when you got that intel it would be much better in your opinion than it truly was.
 
Laptops, I would go with Intel.
Desktops for gaming, I would go with Athlon 64
Desktops for general purpose, I would go with Athlon XP

Over the long haul, I would probably go with Intel. I think Intel is letting AMD beat them right now so there is competition. That way Intel can still make tremendous profits and not be called a monopoly. Intel has enough cash on hand to take out AMD if it really wanted to.
 
blahblahblah said:
Over the long haul, I would probably go with Intel. I think Intel is letting AMD beat them right now so there is competition. That way Intel can still make tremendous profits and not be called a monopoly. Intel has enough cash on hand to take out AMD if it really wanted to.
Click to expand...

yeah... intel is letting amd beat them. amd has over half of what intels stock value is, i doubt they could just stomp them out like that. i doubt intel would waste the billions of dollars theyve spent on r&d on thinks like itanium just so they could have some friendly competition.
 
LOL. Aye, the Itanic, as the Inquirer (I think) dubbed it. But I thought we were just talking about desktop procs, where the competition is really limited to just these two vendors.

The facts are that they both make fast processors. We like to squabble over a few FPS, but in the end that doesn't matter very much. AMD has been a good value for a long time. When things are this close, you need to look to other characteristics. I think Intel really let us down with their gigahertz (gigawatts, lol?) push. I'd favor AMD when considering power consumption and heat dissipation now (which is more than a little ironic). The overall cost to put a system together is cheaper on the AMD platform as well, which I appreciate, so right now, I definitely favor AMD. To be honest though, I'm excited to see what both companies have coming in the way of multi-core for the desktop/workstation.

If you're basing your buying decision on moral/ideological grounds, well, that's fine with me--I don't really care, but it really annoys me when people point to Intel and say "that's a big evil capitalist corporation, go for AMD instead." Honestly guys, it's not like Intel executives eat babies for breakfast and then tour the factory floors to whip the slaves and AMD POWs into shape after their morning coffee break, while having a weekly competition to see who gets to offer his kid to the golden statue back at the office.
 
AMD. I'm currently the owner of a 3.0c p4.....it runs perfectly fine, but in game I've seen my older amd athlon 1.4ghz perform better in some areas. Plus price/performance...though i cant really speak seeing as i spent 800 on a friggin proc.
 
RTFMish said:
Are you getting Far Cry bundled with it? Deal at newegg ;/
Click to expand...


Yeah, as a matter of fact I am. At first I was all wtf what I didn't select farcry? Because they don't outright tell you it's an extra. Cool stuff.
 
I had P4 3.0 800FSB since november and it's an awesome machine. I am getting AMD 64 3200+ on Tuesday and I am looking forward to it. It better be even faster ! :)
 
You'll notice a lot more if you get a new vid card. Sorry don't want to hijack the thread... so:


AMD owns! The whole Ghz debacle is what settled it for me. AMD runs physically slower yet is competitive? Obvious answer: AMD is more efficient inside. Another no-brainer.
 
FictiousWill said:
AMD owns! The whole Ghz debacle is what settled it for me. AMD runs physically slower yet is competitive? Obvious answer: AMD is more efficient inside. Another no-brainer.
Click to expand...
Yeah, basicly performance out of the box. No optimizations needed.
Many programs have to be optimized for Intel's extentions before it will really take off. Take the extentions away and what does Intel really have?
AMD winning MP3 benchmarks?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

-smash-
Valve and The Road to GDC 2015
Replies
10
Views
44K
Engineer123
E
sixteenth
Another Building a Computer Thread
Replies
9
Views
952
Quixoticism
Quixoticism
VirusType2
Intel/AMD x2 x3 x4
Replies
19
Views
1K
Viperidae
Viperidae
arch5
  • Poll
Intel Processors vs AMD Processors
Replies
20
Views
2K
Kadayi
Kadayi
Quixoticism
Another new build thread (yay! \o/)
Replies
6
Views
1K
Quixoticism
Quixoticism
Back
Top