Intel Processors vs AMD Processors

[arch5]

Here is another fun little debate thread.

An epic debate- Intel CPU's vs AMD CPU's.


You can vote in the poll above ^, and/or you can talk about/debate which one you think is the best/worst.
Remember- don't be a troll and attack somebody for not liking the same brand you like.

And when your debating, saying "OMG <AMD or Intel> F**KING SUCKS" isn't telling anybody anything. Give reason(s) why you think they are good/bad.

For a start,
I like Intel CPU's more. I think they are more reliable then AMD, because I once had an AMD laptop and it didn't last that long. (less than a year)

 

[CyberPitz]

Through my personal experiences *and it's been a while*...

AMD processors were not as reliable as their Intel counterparts *this was back in the Pentium 4 days*.

I was able to do MORE with my computer, as AMD as their processors were geared more towards Gaming than anything else...

I'm sure they've done some things to rectify that, but the Steam Hardware Survey shows more of a market share with Intel....

 

[Iced_Eagle]

I've always been a lot more impressed with Intel.

AMD is by no means bad, but Intel is just always, relatively speaking, "better".

 

[Barney Fife]

I've always been a lot more impressed with Intel.

AMD is by no means bad, but Intel is just always, relatively speaking, "better".

FYI Intel should check the rear view mirror.

 

[G(ordon)-man]

I like Intel more (don't tell it to my amd cpu!!), but I hope that AMD won't die, because then we will have a CPU monopoly.

 

[Insano]

I just go with that generation best manufacturer.

 

[Escaep]

I've only owned two processors in my life. One was an Athlon XP 2200+ and a C2D T7700. Of course the T7700 is much better than the single core so you really can't compare the two. But, I never ever had any problems with the Athlon, it lasted me a good 4-5 years.

 

[swan_song1973]

from what ive read AMD is the better brand.

 

[3ssence]

Both good cpu brands, and each have products well placed at different price ranges. For raw power currently intel have the edge with i7 though.

 

[G-Dub]

I feel that AMD processors used to be better until a couple of years ago, now it's Intel on top again.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

I feel that AMD processors used to be better until a couple of years ago, now it's Intel on top again.

This

AMD were by far the better during the Pentium 4 days and before. However Intel have taken the lead again with the Core and i7 series. All my processors before used to be AMD's and they were great, but now i have a Q6600 due to the high threshold of overclocking.

 

[Asus]

They go up and down for who is on top (price/performance, total performance, power usage, heat). Neither are unreliable.*
Intel has been on top for the last couple of years for all of those except in HTPCs. AMD has been the only option if you wanted an HTPC with HD playback (w/onboard ATI GPU) while keeping power usage low (no highend GPU w/fan) and quiet.

Intel is still top dog if you want the highest performance chip. Although AMD's new Phenom 2 is actually very competitive (new as of 2009). Not like it's previous Phenom chip. Although they don't go as high up the price points to match Intels expensive chips.
A rendering benchmark which Intel wins more than they don't. An AMD Phenom 2 940 ($190 @ newegg) beats the Intel Q9400 ($185) and 5% shy of the Q9550 ($270).

For me price makes the biggest difference and performance/watt is next. I have an Intel Q9300 in my main machine from a year or so back. Don't see a need to upgrade any time soon.

*Both are good brands. The chipsets and board that hare picked make it unstable or not (and the drivers for those). The CPU itself is stable from either brand. If the PC you bought always crashed then it was probably the chipset/drivers. If you bought a cheap laptop with an AMD CPU and it failed. If you bought the same cheap brand/model with poor airflow but with an Intel CPU it would also have the same chance at failure.

 

[Dinnesch]

I've got an Athlon XP 2800+ in my pc. When trying to play modern games it is a real pain, because it lacks support for SSE2 instructions. For that reason I can't play games like Far Cry 2, Assasin's Creed, Dead Space and much other good stuff. I also can't use some components of Adobe CS3 and the whole CS4 suite.

Back in the days when the Pentium 4 and Athlon XP were competing this was no problem because games simply didn't use it.

This is no problem for most gamers because they often only use their PC for 3-5 years but if you plan on using it longer(and don't care too much about playing games maxed out) I strongly recommend you buying an Intel one so you won't get an disappointment like this.

 

[Asus]

...I strongly recommend you buying an Intel one so you won't get an disappointment like this.

AMD is different now regarding feature sets. Intel did make SSE2 and AMD took a while to adopt. But don't take old news as if it was current.
Who didn't have X86-64 support at first (64bit desktops) and then later adopted it? Intel
Who still doesn't have all their current CPUs (not including Celeron/Semprons) with Virtulization to use the XP backwards compatibility mode in Win7? Intel (Yes, Intel has quad core CPU models that do not support this...)
AMD only took a year before adopting SSE3 after it was launched by Intel.
AMD announced SSE5 a while back.
Intel said they will be releasing AVX instructions (same as SSE5 but with more commands). AMD is matching.
I'm not saying AMD is better. Just saying don't rely on old habits. Sometimes it's good to reset them so they don't bite ya later.

I've got an Athlon XP 2800+ in my pc. When trying to play modern games it is a real pain, because it lacks support for SSE2 instructions. For that reason I can't play games like Far Cry 2, Assasin's Creed, Dead Space and much other good stuff. I also can't use some components of Adobe CS3 and the whole CS4 suite.

Back in the days when the Pentium 4 and Athlon XP were competing this was no problem because games simply didn't use it.

This is no problem for most gamers because they often only use their PC for 3-5 years but if you plan on using it longer(and don't care too much about playing games maxed out) I strongly recommend you buying an Intel one so you won't get an disappointment like this.

The use of SSE2 did go from none to a lot although you would have had to pay for the more expensive 2.8GHz P4 at the time to get SSE2.
But paying for unused tech and trying to delay upgrading because of it is, in most cases, a waste. You'd just be holding out to watch your 'high tech chip' gets sluggish with more complicated work loads. Same goes with GPUs.
Most find it's better to buy the cheaper chip that performs the best today and use the saved money later to upgrade when those promising features comes into use. Plus you get a faster/cooler new chip.
Although you can get away with it in other fields where you are only worrying about the CPU (programing, encoding).

But if you are doing games, most current GPUs playing current games are going to be bottlenecked with that CPU. The CPU may last but the GPU upgrades won't be worth it when paired with that tech. Same with a P4 2.8GHz.

 

[Musk]

Have always had Intel and had not had any problems with it thus far, so I'll stick with it.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

I've got an Athlon XP 2800+ in my pc. When trying to play modern games it is a real pain, because it lacks support for SSE2 instructions. For that reason I can't play games like Far Cry 2, Assasin's Creed, Dead Space and much other good stuff. I also can't use some components of Adobe CS3 and the whole CS4 suite.

Back in the days when the Pentium 4 and Athlon XP were competing this was no problem because games simply didn't use it.

This is no problem for most gamers because they often only use their PC for 3-5 years but if you plan on using it longer(and don't care too much about playing games maxed out) I strongly recommend you buying an Intel one so you won't get an disappointment like this.

Even if you got an Intel processor that supported SSE2 at that time, it still wouldn't be good enough to play the games you mentioned. Assassin Creed for example needs duel core minimum so either way you'd be stuck. The vast majority of applications don't require SEE2 and the ones that do are usually programs with high demand that require high performance something the older processors wouldn't be able to match up to today. Buy a processor for today's needs not the future.

 

[kupocake]

AMD were the perfect rivals a few years ago. Their processors got me through a few upgrades. I'm back with Intel at the moment (Core 2 Quad Q6600, at 3ghz), but as has been observed, Intel have been ahead of the game for the last year or so. AMD will be back.

It'd be horrid for them to go under now that ATI and AMD are in the same boat.

 

[Dinnesch]

AMD is different now regarding feature sets. Intel did make SSE2 and AMD took a while to adopt. But don't take old news as if it was current.
Who didn't have X86-64 support at first (64bit desktops) and then later adopted it? Intel
Who still doesn't have all their current CPUs (not including Celeron/Semprons) with Virtulization to use the XP backwards compatibility mode in Win7? Intel (Yes, Intel has quad core CPU models that do not support this...)
AMD only took a year before adopting SSE3 after it was launched by Intel.
AMD announced SSE5 a while back.
Intel said they will be releasing AVX instructions (same as SSE5 but with more commands). AMD is matching.
I'm not saying AMD is better. Just saying don't rely on old habits. Sometimes it's good to reset them so they don't bite ya later.

OK, you're right, thanks for the information

The use of SSE2 did go from none to a lot although you would have had to pay for the more expensive 2.8GHz P4 at the time to get SSE2.
But paying for unused tech and trying to delay upgrading because of it is, in most cases, a waste. You'd just be holding out to watch your 'high tech chip' gets sluggish with more complicated work loads. Same goes with GPUs.
Most find it's better to buy the cheaper chip that performs the best today and use the saved money later to upgrade when those promising features comes into use. Plus you get a faster/cooler new chip.
Although you can get away with it in other fields where you are only worrying about the CPU (programing, encoding).

But if you are doing games, most current GPUs playing current games are going to be bottlenecked with that CPU. The CPU may last but the GPU upgrades won't be worth it when paired with that tech. Same with a P4 2.8GHz.

Even if you got an Intel processor that supported SSE2 at that time, it still wouldn't be good enough to play the games you mentioned. Assassin Creed for example needs duel core minimum so either way you'd be stuck. The vast majority of applications don't require SEE2 and the ones that do are usually programs with high demand that require high performance something the older processors wouldn't be able to match up to today. Buy a processor for today's needs not the future.

I found a lot of games satisfying at low/medium settings(not all games look as horrible as Crysis when played on low).

Well it seems you're right and I need to change my way of choosing what to buy, damn it I hate being wrong :S

 

[Asus]

Well it seems you're right and I need to change my way of choosing what to buy, damn it I hate being wrong :S

All ya need is to be current as the "why" you pick Intel/AMD is always changing. Some reasons: Intel has rock stable chipsets. Intel is the only one with chips occupying the high end desktop market. Currently, Intel uses less power on most of their chips to do the same job.

 

[Emelyn]

i always liked AMD because they were more affordable. i still havent upgraded from my athlon 2600+ which i got in 2003. Its a good thing most games i like are for older PC's. Definately would go with intel, if they didnt cost as much

You can buy the same priced athlon for the price of a celeron. Which my last PC was

 

[Kadayi]

I just go with that generation best manufacturer.

This. Same with my pick of graphic cards as well. I have no great loyalties, just really go with what's the best bang for buck at the time.

Right now with this build I'm rocking an Intel and an Nvidia Graphics card, but when I next carry out a major upgrade (which is probably at least 18 months from now) I might well swap out to AMD & ATi dependant on how the tech stands.