|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
What is better? AMD or Intel
What company do you think makes better processors?
AMD or Intel?
AMD or Intel?
I would say the AMD.
AMD's use underclocking techniques to lower temperatures and save battery power. Most machine manufacturers take advantage of this and it enables them to use smaller cases for the computer.
Another reason, is that AMD's dedicated more processing power to the currently running program, or the program which is selected from the task bar, whereas Pentium's are built to multi-task (i think), therefore sharing processing power between programs equally as they are queued on the taskbar.
AMD > INTEL
AMD's use underclocking techniques to lower temperatures and save battery power. Most machine manufacturers take advantage of this and it enables them to use smaller cases for the computer.
Another reason, is that AMD's dedicated more processing power to the currently running program, or the program which is selected from the task bar, whereas Pentium's are built to multi-task (i think), therefore sharing processing power between programs equally as they are queued on the taskbar.
AMD > INTEL
Just from using both I think AMD. I don't know why, but AMD always seems to run faster for me.
For me, my general assumption is that :
For gamers : AMD
For processing : P4
If the multutasking you're talking about is the HyperThreading technology, then it's just a gimmick for the most part, as one processor can only load one process, Windows only gives an illusion of multi tasking by switching to different processes one by one.
And I think your poll is a little unfair, an AMD 3800+ is just faster in all aspects than a P4 3.4 because the AMD 3800 is newer..... It would be more fair if you used a 3400+ Rating processor as well. >.>
However, the 64 Bit processors are a different story.
For gamers : AMD
For processing : P4
If the multutasking you're talking about is the HyperThreading technology, then it's just a gimmick for the most part, as one processor can only load one process, Windows only gives an illusion of multi tasking by switching to different processes one by one.
And I think your poll is a little unfair, an AMD 3800+ is just faster in all aspects than a P4 3.4 because the AMD 3800 is newer..... It would be more fair if you used a 3400+ Rating processor as well. >.>
However, the 64 Bit processors are a different story.
I agree that AMD > Intel in a lot of cases. I don't agree with Sephz0r's point in that both AMD and Intel have their own algorithms for parallel processing or multi-threading within the CPU. Windows is not using special instructions to schedule processes based on CPU type. Whether one program in the task bar gets executed, it is determined by the OS not the CPU.
In many cases, CPU is not that crucial. Memory is more important to your speed if you are using Windows.
In many cases, CPU is not that crucial. Memory is more important to your speed if you are using Windows.
I would have to say AMD. but just my opinion which every one has one. but would suggest staying away from the new 64 bit processors till they get more support for it. a friend of mine has one and cannot get most things to work on it yet such as some webcams and printers.
simply, i think the difference that matters for most users is that:
1. amd is just as good but is cheaper then intel
2. for very high performance applications, intel may have offerings that amd cannot match (but this changes from year to year).
1. amd is just as good but is cheaper then intel
2. for very high performance applications, intel may have offerings that amd cannot match (but this changes from year to year).
Right now AMD processors are performing better than their Intel counterparts.
AMD are better processors for a few reasons:
Price - AMD chips are significantly cheaper than Intel in most cases.
Power Consumption - AMD processors tend to use much less power than an Intel equivalent.
Temperature - AMD chips often run cooler than Intel, so you don't have to use such large fans. This means the computer might run quieter too.
There are a couple of disadvantages though. For instance, Intel's HT (Hyperthreading Technology) is supposed to be excellent. This HT makes the processor act as though it is two processors, making multiple-thread calculations possible and increasing performance under certain conditions. The new Intel Dual-Core processors have two processing units inside on chip - they have also included HT in these, making the computer "appear" to have 4 processors. I've obviously not tested these chips, but if they're good, they will most likely blow the AMDs away.
... Unless AMD come up with an HT equivalent and implement it on their chips. Then we'd have to see test results to make a comparison!
Price - AMD chips are significantly cheaper than Intel in most cases.
Power Consumption - AMD processors tend to use much less power than an Intel equivalent.
Temperature - AMD chips often run cooler than Intel, so you don't have to use such large fans. This means the computer might run quieter too.
There are a couple of disadvantages though. For instance, Intel's HT (Hyperthreading Technology) is supposed to be excellent. This HT makes the processor act as though it is two processors, making multiple-thread calculations possible and increasing performance under certain conditions. The new Intel Dual-Core processors have two processing units inside on chip - they have also included HT in these, making the computer "appear" to have 4 processors. I've obviously not tested these chips, but if they're good, they will most likely blow the AMDs away.
... Unless AMD come up with an HT equivalent and implement it on their chips. Then we'd have to see test results to make a comparison!
| Animal wrote: |
| AMD are better processors for a few reasons:
Price - AMD chips are significantly cheaper than Intel in most cases. Power Consumption - AMD processors tend to use much less power than an Intel equivalent. Temperature - AMD chips often run cooler than Intel, so you don't have to use such large fans. This means the computer might run quieter too. |
I outlined this in my post, and this is true, due to the fact AMD processors underclock themselves when the full power is not needed.
| Animal wrote: |
|
There are a couple of disadvantages though. For instance, Intel's HT (Hyperthreading Technology) is supposed to be excellent. This HT makes the processor act as though it is two processors, making multiple-thread calculations possible and increasing performance under certain conditions. The new Intel Dual-Core processors have two processing units inside on chip - they have also included HT in these, making the computer "appear" to have 4 processors. I've obviously not tested these chips, but if they're good, they will most likely blow the AMDs away. ... Unless AMD come up with an HT equivalent and implement it on their chips. Then we'd have to see test results to make a comparison! |
I thought AMD had implemented their new HyperTransport system?
As far as I know, HyperTransport makes it so the processor doesnt have to act like two single processors, but still be as fast as the Hyperthreading system.
| Sephz0r wrote: |
| ... AMD processors underclock themselves when the full power is not needed. |
Yeah - the Pentium M series of processors do this, and these are widely regarded to be amongst the best processors available. Some companies (particularly those making small form factor PCs) are using mobile chips on desktop computers.
| Sephz0r wrote: |
| I thought AMD had implemented their new HyperTransport system? |
You may be right - I've not used an AMD HyperTransport system though, so couldn't comment. A few sites I've read have suggested that Intel's HT is the next best thing to dual core, but I've not heard anything about AMD's technologies. This doesn't mean it's any worse though - it might just be that Intel got there first.
Not sure, but I think I read somewhere that AMD's HyperTransport had something to do with increasing the bus speed, not the processor speed. And I would say AMD if for no other reason than their price. Intel has yet to equal the Sempron; There is a notable difference between their P4 and equivalent Celeron, but I've noticed no such difference between the Athlon and Sempron. Plus AMD's all over them in 64 bit...
I have used both Intel and AMD processors and I have found both to be 100% reliable so I would say buy on price alone. AMD usually wins here but not always.
I always Vote for AMD bcoz of its performance and price. while comparing to Intel 3.4 Ghz AMD 3800+ bcoz AMD + nforce chipset motherboard is working very fine. At the same the while comparing to intel it is 1/3 cheaper too. So my vote is for AMD
I vote AMD.Because now amd is a performance is better and cheapest processer
AMD, even though it runs hotter than intel, its sitll better, and much easier to overclock!
that comparison is really obvious. Amd use PR as a counter to Intel marketing strategy. That means Amd 3800+ is better than Intel P4 3.4 Ghz. Amd 3800+ = Intel 3.8 Ghz and so on. And one more thing, Intel processor is hot, very hot even in idle.
| takercena wrote: |
| that comparison is really obvious. Amd use PR as a counter to Intel marketing strategy. That means Amd 3800+ is better than Intel P4 3.4 Ghz. Amd 3800+ = Intel 3.8 Ghz and so on. And one more thing, Intel processor is hot, very hot even in idle. |
amd is quite hot too..on a stock fan i was getting 50c
I would go with Intel. It seems that Intel is easier to determine how fast the processor is. With AMD, first-time buyers don't know the actual speed of the processor. I mean I've been around computers pretty much all my life (which is about 13 years). I still don't understand how exactly the AMD processors rank and if the actual processor speed in Ghz is the same as the number with the model of the processor. For example, is an AMD Sempron 2800+ mean that the computer has a 2.8 Ghz processor? It makes no sense. Intel is much easier to understand and I think is better overall.
AMD:far the best!FROM ALL INTEL CPUs!!!Evenfor multitasking and all...FAR the best, their is no discussiion about it...The only CPU, that AMD can't equal YET at least, is the iNTEL XEON series...They are a lot better, but they are used only for servers, and proffetional reasons...So amd is the best for personal computers, either for games, or for other aplications...( i believe that amd will soon launch a series of CPUs for servers, and beat the XEON series...)
INTEL is better.
amd is better
although intel manages to stuff more clokc cycles (ghz) in their cpus; amds make up for their slower speed with a lot more cache, a faster fsb and a better designed architecture
although intel manages to stuff more clokc cycles (ghz) in their cpus; amds make up for their slower speed with a lot more cache, a faster fsb and a better designed architecture
Although right now I'm running an Intel, I do believe that AMD's processors are better at this time. AMD and Intel just seem to be playing leap-frog; one releases something better than the other, and the other releases something better than what the other did...on and on just trying to get ahead of each other. AMD beat Intel to 64-bit processors, so Intel has some catching up to do, especially since Windows Vista comes out this year (unless Microsofts sets it back AGAIN)...
This is not a Computer Problem. I'm 100% confident of that.
-close-
-close-
True 
I'll move it to the right forum
-moved-
-opened-
I'll move it to the right forum
-moved-
-opened-
Check the CPU charts at:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/
It DOES depend on what you are doing with your computer. Intel WAXES AMD when doing multimedia apps, like 3d studio max, simply because of its hyperthreading technology and such. But for games, AMD is the way to go for now. I myself have an Intel because i use 3ds max and stuff...
The AMD 3800+ processor is the more efficient processor because it is the equivalent of an Intel P4 3.8 GHz. AMD does not give you a definite clock speed because it uses a special architecture that allows it to use less cycles to perform more processes. This special architecture does not incorporate the idea of overclocking, so when using overclocking, AMD and Intel gain equivalent values in processing speed. The AMD processors may not be as popular as Intel, but they are better, and especially in terms of advancements in technology. AMD came out with the Athlon 64 at least 2 years before Intel, and by then AMD had come out with it's Athlon FX processor which could process up to 5.7 GHz, which was unheard of at the time. This lapse in advancements in the timeline of Intel shows that they should not be as successful as AMD, but marketing is the basis of popularity. I had never seen an AMD processor until four years ago, and from that point on, I believed that the AMD processor was the better. People may have their opinions, but I would give my opinion with reason that AMD makes the better processor.
Intel is better for me simply because I can't stand a hot and/or noisy computer.....
I have an intel, but I wish I had an AMD 
I use intel because in my case it was turning out to be cheaper then amd. 
In the past, AMD has usually come out on top for reliability and speed for the cost. When I purchased my current processor, that was still the case. I'll find out again when I upgrade next.
AMD rocks! I have been using Athlon 64 for sorts of things n it simply works!!!
I vote for amd coz I use it. I never used Intel 3.4.
But in my place there is rare availability of AMD processors and esp good motherboards for it. I had to wait whole one month for the Asus mobo to arrive. Well, now things have changed in a rapid way. AMD is everywhere. It is popular coz of its ultimate gaming performance.
I vote for amd coz I use it. I never used Intel 3.4.
But in my place there is rare availability of AMD processors and esp good motherboards for it. I had to wait whole one month for the Asus mobo to arrive. Well, now things have changed in a rapid way. AMD is everywhere. It is popular coz of its ultimate gaming performance.
I more perfer AMD because is cheapest .
Both my Processors are AMD
1. They're cheaper
2. They're cooler
3. They're faster (imho!)
Greetz, Arno
1. They're cheaper
2. They're cooler
3. They're faster (imho!)
Greetz, Arno
Yeh,
When some people look for a cpu they look for the speed they don't look at other features of the cpu. AMD's might have a lower core speed but they are much more efficent then intels so they don't useally need that extra speed intel does to run that fast.
Not to mention because intel needs all that speed they will usally have heat issues.
Another think AMD's have that intel doesn't is the on chip virus protection. AMD's will not compute virus coding helping you keep your computer safe from viruses.
When some people look for a cpu they look for the speed they don't look at other features of the cpu. AMD's might have a lower core speed but they are much more efficent then intels so they don't useally need that extra speed intel does to run that fast.
Not to mention because intel needs all that speed they will usally have heat issues.
Another think AMD's have that intel doesn't is the on chip virus protection. AMD's will not compute virus coding helping you keep your computer safe from viruses.
| bicefalus wrote: |
| What do you think is a better processor?
AMD 3800+ or Intel 3.4 GHz |
Amd for gamers and Intel for others.
I work with CPU AMD because they are but stable in the games - these I use them in cibers - also Wendish and when they request information to me I propose AMD to them since I do not want to disappoint the clients
Lol whoever said AMD is cooler is pretty sick.. Stop the CPU Fan for like 30 seconds. You could easily cook some eggs on there.... just melts away like butter in a cookingpan. Intel wont get quick to a 100 degrees in lots more time.
These Dual core Cpu's from AMD overrule the ones from Intel. Intel probably get a new Dual technology on the market. Cuz their Dualcore's pretty much stink. Own my cpu though (Intel P4 2.4@2.6ghz).
You want the best, get an AMD!
And by the way. My cpu is 30 degrees in idle. 45 when gaming. Its an intel P4 standart coolerfan. And I clocked it a bit. Can do more. From 2.4Gh to 2.6.... Not the best cpu but its fast enough to game with. Only need more Memory and new vga.
cya
These Dual core Cpu's from AMD overrule the ones from Intel. Intel probably get a new Dual technology on the market. Cuz their Dualcore's pretty much stink. Own my cpu though (Intel P4 2.4@2.6ghz).
You want the best, get an AMD!
And by the way. My cpu is 30 degrees in idle. 45 when gaming. Its an intel P4 standart coolerfan. And I clocked it a bit. Can do more. From 2.4Gh to 2.6.... Not the best cpu but its fast enough to game with. Only need more Memory and new vga.
cya
| Helios wrote: |
| Next time, use the edit button or get a warning for spam. |
From what I've heard, you can OverClock AMD chips much farther than many Intel chips. The world will cringe in fear behing my dual-cpu Athlon 64 FX server I'm gonna build underneath my floor. Does anyone know of a mobo that supports two of these bad boys?
-Aquastrike
-Aquastrike
But for using in notebooks, Intel is much more efective, since AMD is warming very fast.
I have an Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego and I <3 it. It's got a 1mb L2 Cache, and a 1GHz FSB. That, along with 2GB of Dual Channel DDR400 and a 6800GS = dopeness
INTEL is better for me but it only depends on the user.
AMD is cheaper than P4, and runs great video editing programs, for me AMD is a great option also I'm a gamer and the AMD performance is very good, the Sunday I played Quake 4 on full graphics options with Battlefield 2 full graphics open and nothing happened, is great performer, great price and great compatibility.
I already have the AMD 3700+ 64bits procesor
Great.
I already have the AMD 3700+ 64bits procesor
Great.I have been around intel processors all of my life. At school, Home and my laptop are all intel processors and I havnt had any problems so i would still stay with intel core
im going with amd. not just because i like it, its because there are so many ways to overclock it. I don't know about u overclockers out there but i took my amd athlon 3200 from 2.2ghz to 2.6ghz and its probably possible to make it go higher (water cooling might be required). On the other hand, intel, i think is more for those who run a business. you don't really need to overclock ur processor to run microsoft word, do u? Its usually gamers that push their comps to the limit. Any way, thats what i think.
| garionw wrote: |
| I have been around intel processors all of my life. At school, Home and my laptop are all intel processors and I havnt had any problems so i would still stay with intel core |
Nobody here is saying there are problems with Intel chips. They are very good solid performers and that goes for AMD too.
The way I see it is this:
AMD keep Intel honest by keeping prices down
Intel would slow development if AMD were not pushing the performance envelope. (AMD 64 put pressure on Intel to deliver 64 bit architecture, previously Intel dragged their heels on 32 bit architecture)
Intel produced the Celeron to compete with AMD, and the Celeron is an absolute joke of a processor. Without AMD, Intel would have got away with that horses ass.
I have used both Intel and AMD processors for years, as well as Cyrix/IBM. The first processor I worked with was an Intel 8088, then a NEC V20. I have switched to AMD because they are cheaper, they do not reuqire you to buy expensive Mobos and they are faster buck for buck.
I would go with an AMD Athlon 64 if your looking for something wuick and good.
I use one in one of my machines. Runs better than my friends P4 3.0Ghz(with hyper-threading).
AMD has always been a better processor than Intel. Most of the time. Athlons are the way to go.
Intel has speed, but with the way they are built, they don't seem to run very fast. AMD Athlon 64 2.0GHz runs faster and more stable than P4 3.0GHz. It is sad, but very true.
I use one in one of my machines. Runs better than my friends P4 3.0Ghz(with hyper-threading).
AMD has always been a better processor than Intel. Most of the time. Athlons are the way to go.
Intel has speed, but with the way they are built, they don't seem to run very fast. AMD Athlon 64 2.0GHz runs faster and more stable than P4 3.0GHz. It is sad, but very true.
| DarkAkira wrote: |
| AMD has always been a better processor than Intel. Most of the time. Athlons are the way to go. |
I'm glad you qualified that! The AMD K4/K5 series were dogs, I've seen a lot of them die in front of my very eyes. Literally (in my experience) you had to buy two to be sure of one working out of the box. They got it right with the K6 series, but I was very wary of going back to them after my experiences with the previous generation(s)
this disuccussion is uselees, because isnt about the last processors...
Lets talk about the INTEL D VS THE AMD FX X2?
64 bits, dual core technology and that.
where AMD cpus are not cheaper that Intels
Lets talk about the INTEL D VS THE AMD FX X2?
64 bits, dual core technology and that.
where AMD cpus are not cheaper that Intels
| anticitizen1 wrote: |
| this disuccussion is uselees, because isnt about the last processors...
Lets talk about the INTEL D VS THE AMD FX X2? 64 bits, dual core technology and that. where AMD cpus are not cheaper that Intels |
Indeed, the most expensive AMD CPU costs more then the most expensive Intel CPU.
Though any AMD CPU that is in the same pricerange as it's Intel competitor, will beat it.
X2 is way more powerful than anything intel has on the market right now.
Me and my friend have been looking for upgrades. He does Intel, I do AMD.
Even he admits my AMD will kick his intels ass.
Me and my friend have been looking for upgrades. He does Intel, I do AMD.
Even he admits my AMD will kick his intels ass.
I have intel 3.2 & I tried the AMD 3500 & I think that Intel is better than AMD in many facts , intel faster than AMD , dunno but I heard some info about the AMD 4000 & it seems to be good
AMD all the way. Gaming or digital content creation.
Intel, I guess, for legacy lovers and loyal folks.
I use an A64 3000+ which pretty much fulfils my need for speed and doesn't cause any quakes at all. Intel Pentium M and Intel Celeron are especially pathetic (dunno about core duo) when it comes to anything more than web browsing (I have a Compaq [1.6G Pentium M] laptop).
Dunno about the top end but AMD's pieces are fine all the way down to 3000+. An FX60 is not unwelcome, though
And the only place I don't mind an intel inside... is inside a Mac (can't do much about it anyway) :p
Cheers
Intel, I guess, for legacy lovers and loyal folks.
I use an A64 3000+ which pretty much fulfils my need for speed and doesn't cause any quakes at all. Intel Pentium M and Intel Celeron are especially pathetic (dunno about core duo) when it comes to anything more than web browsing (I have a Compaq [1.6G Pentium M] laptop).
Dunno about the top end but AMD's pieces are fine all the way down to 3000+. An FX60 is not unwelcome, though
And the only place I don't mind an intel inside... is inside a Mac (can't do much about it anyway) :p
Cheers
One word, AMD. AMD has shown that it can, indeed, beat Intel. AMD is a gamer's dream come true. Intel is overpriced, and noisy. Though, in some cases, AMD runs hotter. AMD beats Intel everywhere, from the desktop to the laptop, and from the multimedia PC to an ultimate gaming PC. The one problem with AMD is that it doesn't come in many computers. Though, I prefer to build, AMD should replace Intel in many computer companies, especially Dell. In conclusion, AMD is far better than Intel will ever be.
AMD has really been one step ahead of Intel for the last 2 years for the most part. x64, Gaming, Speed, Power comsp., and price. If you do heavy app cpu work like audio or graphics, than Intel is for you. I wonder what most people actually use their computers for, I got the impression that less than 10% do heavy video editing and such, Tell me if I'm wrong. 
I think it is interesting that soon Intel will be droping the P4 line in favor of the old P3s for the base CPU of the future. The P4s take to much power, and are way to hot. So must for the last few years of research. My old AMD 3700+ beats any P4 3.8 for gaming and thats what matters for me. Well duel core and cell tech should be interesting. We will see if AMD can keep going strong.
I think AMD By far cant wait till amd socket to comes out!!
AMD has slowly won the hearts of the overall consumer, i too love AMD the main attraction to me is the overclocking ability, power consumptions and heat. Especially for people that leaves their computer on for days, it will be difficult if it sttracts more heat and cost more on your monthly bill ^^
it's depends how would you use your PC, for games it's AMD and for applecatians like FL studio or CUBASE it's INTEL
I think Intel 3.4 Ghz is more good. comparison is really obvious. Amd use PR as a counter to Intel marketing strategy. That means Amd 3800+ is better than Intel P4 3.4 Ghz. Amd 3800+ = Intel 3.8 Ghz and so on. And one more thing, Intel processor is hot.
Amd's products also cheaper than Intel's products.The server of AMD is very good.You can accept their good servers when you buy their products.I use it now,it's very good.You can try it .It's really good one!
Amd's products also cheaper than Intel's products.The server of AMD is very good.You can accept their good servers when you buy their products.I use it now,it's very good.You can try it .It's really good one!
i used intel for the past five years but last year i got an AMD pc, with was roughly 200mhz clock speed lower
and i have found that it is much faster and more reliable than my intel had ever been...even when i brought it
and i have found that it is much faster and more reliable than my intel had ever been...even when i brought it
AMD of course 
AMD wil always be the best. But we will see, because Intel is going to release very good Conroe processor. I saw some tests of it. The Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8 GHz had no chance with conroe 2.66 Ghz. And conroe 2.66 will not be high-end processor, but mid-end... But I'm waiting for K9 and I believe that this processor will be better than Conroe.. I hope
AMD wil always be the best. But we will see, because Intel is going to release very good Conroe processor. I saw some tests of it. The Athlon 64 FX-60 overclocked to 2.8 GHz had no chance with conroe 2.66 Ghz. And conroe 2.66 will not be high-end processor, but mid-end... But I'm waiting for K9 and I believe that this processor will be better than Conroe.. I hope
Amd AMD Amd ...............
Amd is cheap and steabil I m using No problem
Amd is cheap and steabil I m using No problem
it was a very hard decision, but i chose AMD, they are my initials btw. is it possible to run an amd and an intel on the same motherboard? that would be the ultimate system
| The_Gamer294 wrote: |
| it was a very hard decision, but i chose AMD, they are my initials btw. is it possible to run an amd and an intel on the same motherboard? that would be the ultimate system |
It's impossible because AMD's processors require other types of socket than Penitum 4. Athlon 64 is to Socket 754, 939, 940 or AM2. Pentium 4 Prescott, Extreme Edition, Presler and Cedar Mill are to Socket T (LGA 775)
AMD was, it is and will be the best!!!!
AMD was, it is and will be the best. You compare AMD and Intel notice that AMD is cheaper!!!
AMD was, it is and will be the best. You compare AMD and Intel notice that AMD is cheaper!!!
I think intel A ton of computers have them but some are hard to overclock and heat is an issue
i vote amd because their speed is far beyond the intel processor
AMD i use it coz low price but hight power
AMD is way better (sometimes by price too)
but, running Folding@Home (folding.stanford.edu) runs slower on AMD machines.
I might still be tempted to buy Intels because I got no money to build one and HP is the only one that has AMDs
but, running Folding@Home (folding.stanford.edu) runs slower on AMD machines.
I might still be tempted to buy Intels because I got no money to build one and HP is the only one that has AMDs
i like intel better for now. i'm planning to upgrade my desktop and found out amd's dual core processors are by far expensive than intel's. intel's recent 0.65u processor has 2M internal L2 cache and i'm guessing that it'll give better performance over amd's 1M cache architecture.
Vote Intel - I always trust it, very reliable thing!
amd is better than intel except for the games
AMD
That's what I'll take for my new computer
Look at this article:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html?tag=lnav
That's what I'll take for my new computer
Look at this article:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html?tag=lnav
| Quote: |
| After reading the round-by-round account of our dual-core desktop CPU prizefight, it should come as no shock that AMD's Athlon 64 X2 chips are the runaway victors here, laying out the Intel Pentium D and Pentium Extreme Edition 840 chips pins up. If we had to call out one chip, AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4400+ is an outstanding bargain given the competition, but as our results show, any AMD dual-core CPU will serve you better than its similarly priced Intel equivalent.
If you're wondering why there's such a striking performance difference between the two companies' processors, it likely has something to do with the memory controller. Among the technological differences between the two, AMD's memory controller--the component that sends information back and forth between your system's CPU and the memory--is an integrated part of the Athlon 64 X2's chip architecture. Intel's memory controller, however, exists as a separate piece of silicon on the motherboard. The additional distance between the CPU and the memory controller adds to the processing lag time and likely plays a part in Intel's lower scores. Whatever Intel's strategy, it doesn't seem to have held up. We're very interested to see what happens when the next generation of chips and chipsets hits the market starting in January. But until then, AMD's Athlon 64 X2 should be your dual-core processor of choice. |
| Animal wrote: |
| Use Quote tags as per the forum rules. If you don't you may get a warning for spam. |
AMD forever!!!! I hosted a game server on Intel because i thought it would be faster for single applications, but i had to switch computer because it was burning hot. I changed from Intel 3.0ghz overclocked to 3.6ghz to AMD 3200+ 2.2ghz overclocked to 2.8ghz
The difference is noticable for my 100 players But after awhile, i had to switch again so i can play my own games on my own computer
My CPU Stats Atm:
AMD 3200+ Newcastle 2.2ghz overclocked to 2.83ghz
Voltage: 1.575-1.600
RAM Timings: 2-3-2-5 (If i loosen it, my CPU will be super fast but some programs might lose some performance)
Temperature:
Stock: 29degree celsius IDLE -> 35degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2
Overclocked: 33degree celsius IDLE -> 43degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2
------------------------
Intel Temperature:
Stock: 35degree celsius IDLE -> 41degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2
Overclocked: 38degree celsius IDLE -> 46degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2
-----------------------
Peformance comparison: (Vsync is enabled)
AMD Stock: 25-75FPS
AMD Overclocked: 33-75FPS
Intel Stock: 18-75FPS
Intel Overclocked: 24-75FPS
To sum it up, AMD pwns Intel in every case! The price is better, speed is better, temperature is cooler, overclocking is more easy to do and ...more!
The difference is noticable for my 100 players
But after awhile, i had to switch again so i can play my own games on my own computer
My CPU Stats Atm:
AMD 3200+ Newcastle 2.2ghz overclocked to 2.83ghz
Voltage: 1.575-1.600
RAM Timings: 2-3-2-5 (If i loosen it, my CPU will be super fast but some programs might lose some performance)
Temperature:
Stock: 29degree celsius IDLE -> 35degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2
Overclocked: 33degree celsius IDLE -> 43degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2
------------------------
Intel Temperature:
Stock: 35degree celsius IDLE -> 41degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2
Overclocked: 38degree celsius IDLE -> 46degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2
-----------------------
Peformance comparison: (Vsync is enabled)
AMD Stock: 25-75FPS
AMD Overclocked: 33-75FPS
Intel Stock: 18-75FPS
Intel Overclocked: 24-75FPS
To sum it up, AMD pwns Intel in every case! The price is better, speed is better, temperature is cooler, overclocking is more easy to do and ...more!
Amd Amd AMD
2 reason
Performance
Prize
2 reason
Performance
PrizeAMD because of its new 64- bit processor.
I prefer AMD.
AMD is more geared towards gaming.
And Intel is more of a multi-tasking processor
AMD is more geared towards gaming.
And Intel is more of a multi-tasking processor
| thuganomics wrote: |
| AMD forever!!!! I hosted a game server on Intel because i thought it would be faster for single applications, but i had to switch computer because it was burning hot. I changed from Intel 3.0ghz overclocked to 3.6ghz to AMD 3200+ 2.2ghz overclocked to 2.8ghz
The difference is noticable for my 100 players But after awhile, i had to switch again so i can play my own games on my own computer
My CPU Stats Atm: AMD 3200+ Newcastle 2.2ghz overclocked to 2.83ghz Voltage: 1.575-1.600 RAM Timings: 2-3-2-5 (If i loosen it, my CPU will be super fast but some programs might lose some performance) Temperature: Stock: 29degree celsius IDLE -> 35degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2 Overclocked: 33degree celsius IDLE -> 43degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2 ------------------------ Intel Temperature: Stock: 35degree celsius IDLE -> 41degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2 Overclocked: 38degree celsius IDLE -> 46degree celsius on full load in Battlefield 2 ----------------------- Peformance comparison: (Vsync is enabled) AMD Stock: 25-75FPS AMD Overclocked: 33-75FPS Intel Stock: 18-75FPS Intel Overclocked: 24-75FPS To sum it up, AMD pwns Intel in every case! The price is better, speed is better, temperature is cooler, overclocking is more easy to do and ...more! |
why overclock ?? do u actually notice a difference when playing games? or does it turn u on to see higher numbers on the benchmark?
I've had both started with an amd athlon xp3200 great cpu, then upgraded to a p4 3.6 ghz even though theres a giant leap in price difference at least £250 the bigger pricetab isnt justified and i couldnt see a great difference between the two but obviously if monbey isnt an object itsthe intel if not amddo a great job and arent much further behind for a lot less money.
Hello
Go for the AMD 3800+, my friend has a AMD 3200+ and it beats alot of the Intel processors that cost up to 200+ more.
The main advantages of the AMD Processor compared to Intel is that they have a 2000Mhz FSB speed. Even with the lesser processor speed they haven't got nearly the bottle neck problem that Intel processors have with their 800Mhz FSB.
Also they run at a lower wattage which means less heat problems which means the ability to overclock is greatly increased.
Hope it has helped, go AMD because they are better, and cheaper.
britto
Go for the AMD 3800+, my friend has a AMD 3200+ and it beats alot of the Intel processors that cost up to 200+ more.
The main advantages of the AMD Processor compared to Intel is that they have a 2000Mhz FSB speed. Even with the lesser processor speed they haven't got nearly the bottle neck problem that Intel processors have with their 800Mhz FSB.
Also they run at a lower wattage which means less heat problems which means the ability to overclock is greatly increased.
Hope it has helped, go AMD because they are better, and cheaper.
britto
I am currently using a Pentium not used AMD b4. But reading all the above posts can one summarize that AMD is more suited for gamers ? I am a graphic designer and hope to buy a new one soon. What would u suggest 4 me ?
I have a Intel Dual Core and I like it.
I vote Intel.
I vote Intel.
I dont understand why people still argue about this,
every forum i ve entered there is a topic like that
and the winner is AMD.
Amd is the best, this is just my opinion.
I dont work for AMD : )
every forum i ve entered there is a topic like that
and the winner is AMD.
Amd is the best, this is just my opinion.
I dont work for AMD : )
Amd my 3700 goes to 2.8 on air @ 1.4
AMD all the way.
1. It's cooler
2. It's faster
3. They don't have f'ed up Heat Sink to motherboard connection
1. It's cooler
2. It's faster
3. They don't have f'ed up Heat Sink to motherboard connection
I think that AMD 3800+ is better. AMD is very good PC company, and quality of PC`s who was made by AMD - don't brake so fast
I have used both, and AMD has always come out on top for me. I have noticed that AMD has always run at a lower temp, allowing me to run it harder. In the long run, lower temperature allows igher overclocking makeing the AMD come out on top starting from the same stock speed as the Intel
Personally I have used both AMD and Intel and I found that they both have their up sides and their down sides.
The Good:
Intel - Better at switching between tasks and have higher solicited clock speeds that some games and apps ask you for.
AMD - Good for overclocking thanks to unlocked multipliers, runs cool, runs games more efficiently, can run at same speeds as intel can with a lower clock speed. Faster FSB speeds.
The Bad:
Intel - The tend to run rather hot so you need more extensive cooling, they have locked multipliers so thats bad for overclocking. slower FSB speeds.
AMD - I have had problems since my processor is only rated at 2.2Ghz running programs that require 2.5Ghz or sometimes even 2Ghz even though they are just as fast as the higher clocked intels. Right now AMD chips are a little more expensive than the newer intel Pentium D processors. Right now it doesnt support DDR2. (though AM2 will change that.)
Overall i have had very similar experiences with both my intel P4 that i used to have and my Opteron 148 that i just got. They seem to run basically the same, or atleast the difference is un-noticable to me. The only major thing I have really noticed is a drop in overall temp of my system. My old P4 was running at about 50C on average and my new Opteron is running close to that but i know it should be closer to 40C...i just have to figure out why, but once that is fixed, i will have a cooler machine. I have also noticed a difference in programs like PSCS where with the P4 i had a good deal of lag when using certain brushes but now i dont have it as bad, though that could be because of the upgraded video card...
If i had to pick one though it would definatly be the AMD processors because I personally like to overclock and AMD allows me to do that, plus it is better in gaming and has lower temps.
We'll see where my choice is when things change when Conroe comes out though
The Good:
Intel - Better at switching between tasks and have higher solicited clock speeds that some games and apps ask you for.
AMD - Good for overclocking thanks to unlocked multipliers, runs cool, runs games more efficiently, can run at same speeds as intel can with a lower clock speed. Faster FSB speeds.
The Bad:
Intel - The tend to run rather hot so you need more extensive cooling, they have locked multipliers so thats bad for overclocking. slower FSB speeds.
AMD - I have had problems since my processor is only rated at 2.2Ghz running programs that require 2.5Ghz or sometimes even 2Ghz even though they are just as fast as the higher clocked intels. Right now AMD chips are a little more expensive than the newer intel Pentium D processors. Right now it doesnt support DDR2. (though AM2 will change that.)
Overall i have had very similar experiences with both my intel P4 that i used to have and my Opteron 148 that i just got. They seem to run basically the same, or atleast the difference is un-noticable to me. The only major thing I have really noticed is a drop in overall temp of my system. My old P4 was running at about 50C on average and my new Opteron is running close to that but i know it should be closer to 40C...i just have to figure out why, but once that is fixed, i will have a cooler machine. I have also noticed a difference in programs like PSCS where with the P4 i had a good deal of lag when using certain brushes but now i dont have it as bad, though that could be because of the upgraded video card...
If i had to pick one though it would definatly be the AMD processors because I personally like to overclock and AMD allows me to do that, plus it is better in gaming and has lower temps.
We'll see where my choice is when things change when Conroe comes out though
AMD of course ^^
AMD is best today, at least to conroe comes
AMD is best today, at least to conroe comes
AMD IS WAY BETTER !....
i know Intel is planning to launch the Conroe (Core 2 Duo)... after seeing the initial test i have to admitt,.... thats some pretty big nos.. but I am not worrying about it... AMD Has their new 4x4 (Quad Core---it has FOUR cores) processor to be released in 2007... i mean intel is just settlin into their high performance dual core designs... and AMD already has Four cores...
AMD HAS ALREADY STARTED WORK ON 22 NM PROCESSORS ....
i really hope that they work with IBM to bring out Cell like processors for mainstream market....
i know Intel is planning to launch the Conroe (Core 2 Duo)... after seeing the initial test i have to admitt,.... thats some pretty big nos.. but I am not worrying about it... AMD Has their new 4x4 (Quad Core---it has FOUR cores) processor to be released in 2007... i mean intel is just settlin into their high performance dual core designs... and AMD already has Four cores...
AMD HAS ALREADY STARTED WORK ON 22 NM PROCESSORS ....
i really hope that they work with IBM to bring out Cell like processors for mainstream market....
| Quote: |
|
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) will ship four-core processors for servers, workstations and high-end desktops by mid-2007, company Chief Technology Officer Phil Hester said Thursday. The company will also launch a new dual-core design for mainstream desktops around that time. All four new processors will use AMD's new 65-nanometer process chip architecture, he told a room full of analysts at the company's annual Technology Day in Sunnyvale, California. AMD has led Intel in the move to dual-core processors, but Intel is set to raise the ante by shipping four-core chips in mid-2007. AMD's announcement will allow it to match that bid. In addition to building chips with more processing cores and smaller components, AMD also wants to build more efficient products. On Thursday the company also revealed plans to build a highly efficient dual-core notebook processor, set for release in the second half of 2007. Power efficiency is a major theme in the company's constant battle with Intel. AMD often claims superior power efficiency, expressed as performance-per-watt. The new family of chips will continue that theme by implementing a system that changes the frequency in each core to match its workload, Hester said. Compared to today's Opteron processor-powered servers, that approach will boost efficiency by 60 percent in 2007, and 150 percent in 2008. Likewise, AMD will use a similar approach to control power drain in the next-generation mobile processor. That dual-core chip will switch the power on or off in its cores, using only enough power to match the demands of its workload. At the analyst event, AMD also disclosed plans to open up its chip design to third-party developers, an effort the company has code-named "Torrenza." AMD hopes the effort will help it gain more partners among PC vendors in its effort to chisel market share away from giant Intel. Under the Torrenza plan, AMD will share the company's chip design with third-party developers, allowing them to develop application-specific co-processors to work alongside AMD chips in a multisocket system. The company also shared new market strategies to cut costs for enterprise IT managers by delivering a security bundle and by promoting thin-client computing. AMD will offer software tools to its OEM (original equipment manufacturer) partners, allowing them to reduce IT costs for commercial client and server platforms by linking three features -- security, virtualization and manageability. These open business models could spell success for AMD in its efforts to enlist more partners, analysts said. "If Torrenza will play up to their Direct Connect architecture, that means they will be pushing that architecture in general. That is an excellent opportunity to leverage openness and cultivate the entire ecosystem," said Kelly Quinn, an analyst with IDC. AMD also shed a little light on its roadmap for shrinking the wires and gates on its microprocessors. AMD's is already making processors using a 90 nanometer (nm) process but by the end of the year it expects to be producing 65-nm process chips. It will move to a 45-nm process by 2008 and shrink to 32 nm by 2010. AMD is even working on 22 nm technology today, in a joint research arrangement with IBM Corp. |
or heres the link....
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/06/01/78869_HNamdquad_1.html
Come on now..Seriously..AMD rox Intel...The ONLY Good thing about Intel is (I HEAR) their Core-Duo as opposed to AMD DUEL CORE technology is better...But overall I like AMD and I also hear Dell will be switchin from Intel to AMD (Not Sure on the facts as they are rumors to me, But i wouldnt doubt it
AMD Athlon Processor is always better. The reason for this is its massive 3800+. Intel has its powers as well though. Most Intels have pentium 4's which are reliable but as to say Amd Athlon has an amptitude of bieng in most computer system. HP has AMD. I think Dell uses Intel. Same with Gateway and Emachines both suck.
I love AMD 
No doubt.... AMD IS WAY BETTER............
and i know that the four core version will rock... and i am hoping it will run intel out of business....
and i know that the four core version will rock... and i am hoping it will run intel out of business....
wel lamd need more cooling capacity compare with intel if not your in troubel
AMD easily
AMD had some heating probs before.. but they fixed all that..we never hear of an AMD Overheating nowadays...
i know what i am going to say.. is not possilbe (hoping it is possilbe)... but what if AMD licenses CELL from Sony and IBM and Toshiba... waht if they come out with the general purpose ccell proc that we can all buy and use just like any other proc....wild idea.. may not be possible but... it wud be gr8...
i know what i am going to say.. is not possilbe (hoping it is possilbe)... but what if AMD licenses CELL from Sony and IBM and Toshiba... waht if they come out with the general purpose ccell proc that we can all buy and use just like any other proc....wild idea.. may not be possible but... it wud be gr8...
in my oppinion AMD trump intel. they were first out with a 64 consumer cpu, and if you are like me and like overclock your pc the bios in almost never locked. lower cpu temps and more stble, amd all the way
Amd was the pioneer in seamless 64 bit design... it was the only proc that was able to run 32 bit app and seamlessly switch to 64 bit ones.. i hear that intel actually licensed the AMD64 technology made some changes so as to fit their arch better, renamed as EM64T and released it...
I just purchased a 3200+ 64 processor and I have been AMD since they came out (even though Xeon is my namesake) and by far AMD is best for value. If you have no problems with funds I believe P4 and AMD are comperable, but where I come from Money is King and AMD is much, much cheaper over here. If you dare dabble in Dual Processor servers Intel has em beat easily.
I have a sony with Intel and it is very NOISY, my Gateway laptop has Intel and overheats too much. The HP I am using is just fine with AMD.
AMD is clearly the choice fo users. Economy is the most important determining factors. Should also consider power consumption and heat radiation for the 2 processors.
depending on their uses is which is better. AMD is a great gaming Cpu but i preffer the intel chip because i get better overall performance, i do quite a bit of divx encoding and video recording so this gives the intel a great bonus. I bought the 3GHz P4 chip, the dual cores where too expensive and not worth the hassle. I have the cpu overclocked to 3.6GHz as well as ram overclocked and my cpu stays a safe 40 degrees most of the time and that is stock cooling. AMD or Intel is all in the users
P.S. The equiverlant naming of the AMD such as 3800 is not a good reference because none of my friends with higher AMD cpu's get better performance than me.
P.S. The equiverlant naming of the AMD such as 3800 is not a good reference because none of my friends with higher AMD cpu's get better performance than me.
i prefer amd over intel. amd = more flops per dollar and less heat per flop. the only downside for amd has been chipset and ram support but this has been improving greatly in recent years.
AMD is definatly a better one than Intel, A great one for a serious gamer or for a great media fellow... but I suppose Intel will not be too bad..
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2005Dec/bch20051215033811.htm
I found that article the other day^. It does a good job of explaining the difference between amd processors and intel's p4 netburst technology.
I found that article the other day^. It does a good job of explaining the difference between amd processors and intel's p4 netburst technology.
| tony wrote: |
| http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2005Dec/bch20051215033811.htm
|
thats a pretty good explanation. i too would agree with the majority and say AMDs are better. looking at development AMD always seems to be ahead of intel aswell, an expample would be the mentioned quadcore processors that will be coming in a year or so
i have an older 1.5 gb intell processor my son has a newer amd chipset its a 2.2 but my intel smokes the amd we both have 768 mb of ram but my older intel runs circles arounf his amd imo intel p4 still rules
I don't consider an AMD vs Intel debate healthy for wise consumer. Take each product by themselves. At the time of my computer purchase, the Athlon 64 was the best bang for buck. If I was to purchase another computer in the next six months though, I'd probably go with a Core 2 Duo considering the great game performance and overclockability.
It's unfortunate for AMD that when they finally started getting a decent amount of market share due to their great Athlon 64/X2 processors, Intel stepped in with such a powerful dual core cpu. It's great for consumers though since prices on nearly every cpu have dropped dramatically in the last couple months.
Right now I'm looking at the E6600 as my CPU of choice, not that A64 X2s aren't a great buy given their crazy low price points.
It's unfortunate for AMD that when they finally started getting a decent amount of market share due to their great Athlon 64/X2 processors, Intel stepped in with such a powerful dual core cpu. It's great for consumers though since prices on nearly every cpu have dropped dramatically in the last couple months.
Right now I'm looking at the E6600 as my CPU of choice, not that A64 X2s aren't a great buy given their crazy low price points.
Core 2 duo was a blow to AMD's market share growth but surely that will never deter their spirits or enthusiasm to become the best once again. Plus we can hope for newer and better products (ALL-IN-ONE solutions), now that AMD partnered up with ATI.
Who knows what the future has for us, we can hope... AMD is not worried about the core 2 Duo as they know they are going to take back the market once they release the new quad core.
Who knows what the future has for us, we can hope... AMD is not worried about the core 2 Duo as they know they are going to take back the market once they release the new quad core.
I have both, but I don't think it makes much difference. For gaming, I would say AMD is better, but in laptops, Intel.
it looks like that intel is trying to win in a segment, that they never can.. the graphics segment... AMD got themselves the king, ATI.. intel is frantically trying to come out with a product similar to that of AMDs..
They are just a bunch of copy cats... i mean others make good ideas and intel just steals ("legally", though) them...come on... many are thinking they will go for nvidia,,,that again shows that they can come out with some thing or the other once in a while but they still need help from others to get back into the game... tell me how long will intel be at top...
They are just a bunch of copy cats... i mean others make good ideas and intel just steals ("legally", though) them...come on... many are thinking they will go for nvidia,,,that again shows that they can come out with some thing or the other once in a while but they still need help from others to get back into the game... tell me how long will intel be at top...
No daubt, you get the better Processor for your money at AMD's. More performance for the same money. Admittedly, I have an P4 3.0Ghz... But these days I'm working on a computer sys together with TomS, and I definitely recommended him to take an AMD after having talked about it for a while. Ok, today, I'd recommend the Athlon 64 X2 ones. Very good for the price is e.g. the 4200+ with an AM2-Socket. Don't take 939-sockets today anymore. They're old and you can't use DDR2-Ram...
| Sephz0r wrote: |
| I would say the AMD.
AMD's use underclocking techniques to lower temperatures and save battery power. Most machine manufacturers take advantage of this and it enables them to use smaller cases for the computer. Another reason, is that AMD's dedicated more processing power to the currently running program, or the program which is selected from the task bar, whereas Pentium's are built to multi-task (i think), therefore sharing processing power between programs equally as they are queued on the taskbar. AMD > INTEL |
as per your explanation, dont you think AMD will process slower than intel if mutilple tasks are running simultaneously, which can be commonly seen in most of the personal computers being used to the homes?
First of all, we need to consider how AMD came out. As many of you may remember, the days when the only PC processor was Intel is not so long ago.
What happened then?
AMD implemented the exact same instruction set, with the ideas from its engineers. Whatevet Intel did, AMD had to copy. Because Intel was already a standard and thousands of compilers etc existed for Intel, and the programs were already compiled for it.
It's been some time since AMD came out, but the question whether AMD can have implemented the same instruction set better than Intel is still open, the reason is that Intel is a much bigger team and have always had the time advantage versus AMD.
In my opinion AMD today is as close as it gets to Intel, but still Intel is one step ahead.
What happened then?
AMD implemented the exact same instruction set, with the ideas from its engineers. Whatevet Intel did, AMD had to copy. Because Intel was already a standard and thousands of compilers etc existed for Intel, and the programs were already compiled for it.
It's been some time since AMD came out, but the question whether AMD can have implemented the same instruction set better than Intel is still open, the reason is that Intel is a much bigger team and have always had the time advantage versus AMD.
In my opinion AMD today is as close as it gets to Intel, but still Intel is one step ahead.
AMD did come out with their own 64-bit extension (AMD64).. intel had to copy that of from AMD... well both companies are good... AMD is younger compared to INTEL so there will be some differences in tech... but nonetheless. AMD kicks but..the new core 2 DUO looks good but looking at cost factor .. i will go for an AMD any day....
Dont know why AMD couldn't come out with DDR2 and 65nm manufacturing processes sooner....
Dont know why AMD couldn't come out with DDR2 and 65nm manufacturing processes sooner....
I have intel 4 3.6 ghz. Old technology, intel is supposed to outperform AMD with it's dual core 2 cpus.
I don't like intel, because;
1. They are (generally) more expensive.
2. They (generally) run hotter than AMD processors.
and 3. Thier marketing tactics, they try to steal AMD's customers by forcing them to use intel chips in whatever way they can.
1. They are (generally) more expensive.
2. They (generally) run hotter than AMD processors.
and 3. Thier marketing tactics, they try to steal AMD's customers by forcing them to use intel chips in whatever way they can.
I would prefer AMD over Intel especially that I'm into graphics design. Before we used AMD 64 (900 MHz) and i would say it was even faster thatn the P4 (3.0) that we hae now, not to mention that our AMD before uses only 512 of RAM and 64 bit video card.
amd has always been the better performing procesoor.... they will blow intel away soon....
AMD is very much better than Intel when your talking to an overall aspect on how a processor truly works...
It is very much cheaper and faster compared with Intel.....
Try to check this out...
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html?tag=lnav
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5322290.html
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1854788,00.asp
http://news.com.com/AMD+desktop+chips+edge..._3-5322290.html
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx
It is very much cheaper and faster compared with Intel.....
Try to check this out...
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html?tag=lnav
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5322290.html
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1854788,00.asp
http://news.com.com/AMD+desktop+chips+edge..._3-5322290.html
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx
thanx for the links... well we can wait for the true battle between AMD and intell... in the next year... when AMD comes out with their new proecssors....
i cant wait....if i had a wish i will wish for the AMD 4x4 CPU machine....
ha... that will be the day...
i cant wait....if i had a wish i will wish for the AMD 4x4 CPU machine....
ha... that will be the day...
Intell is all i have used, but a friend of mines always complains of the AMD he got... now that tells me, not to recommend AMD processor
thats not all wrong...
AMD did have some trouble in the past... but now AMD makes some of the most popular and best perfomming processors in the world...
AMD CPUs are cheaper than their equivalent performing Intel coutnerpart..(donno abt core 2 duo).. They have a feature called cool and quiet which makes the proc run cooler and quieter than old AMD CPUS..one of my friends have an AMD thunderbird(1.2 GHz).. its performs real good...
i say always recommend AMD... Intel may have the market share and the ads... but AMD is a good cost effective quality product...i garuntee
AMD did have some trouble in the past... but now AMD makes some of the most popular and best perfomming processors in the world...
AMD CPUs are cheaper than their equivalent performing Intel coutnerpart..(donno abt core 2 duo).. They have a feature called cool and quiet which makes the proc run cooler and quieter than old AMD CPUS..one of my friends have an AMD thunderbird(1.2 GHz).. its performs real good...
i say always recommend AMD... Intel may have the market share and the ads... but AMD is a good cost effective quality product...i garuntee
intel chipset have more problem like overheat processor, cache memory problem and unstable.... that why next year, intel pentium 4 not created again.... in market,,, just for stock clearing......
The intel conroe will be the best processor ever but intel have been loosing game since intel pentiul II
AMD is definately the best. They run better, they are cheaper, and, well, that's all you need to know. Buy AMD!
AMD is always coming with new fresh processors which are steps ahead than intel. At any stage, Intel cannot overtake AMD nowadays.
Now I want to assemble a system, and I try different Motherboard - processor combination and finally end up with an AMD solution, because at the same price point AMD system is always far better than Intel. So for my budget I was not able to find an Intel system - too bad for intel
.
Now I want to assemble a system, and I try different Motherboard - processor combination and finally end up with an AMD solution, because at the same price point AMD system is always far better than Intel. So for my budget I was not able to find an Intel system - too bad for intel
.Conroe may be better.... but AMD will beat it with its already finished 4x4 core proc (Quad core)
| cjtreid wrote: |
| I have an intel, but I wish I had an AMD |
haha same story here
i have an AMD... i curse the day... when i had an old P3
AMD ++++ than INTEL-----
AMD is better than Intel b'se i use both but AMD's performance is better like in price, power and processing so i preferred to use AMD.It's not heat up like Intel as well as save power and multitasking is also good.
AMD is better than Intel b'se i use both but AMD's performance is better like in price, power and processing so i preferred to use AMD.It's not heat up like Intel as well as save power and multitasking is also good.
You guys humour me greatly this question doesnt have a straight forward answer as you can compare them on a number of levels here are a couple of examples.
-money for ghz
-gaming
-number crunching (video encoding you know what i mean)
As for shear price AMD has always been good to us, I had this in mind when i bought my A64 3500+. Also amd are good for gaming.
Problem is that these pweny AMD chips dont have the roar power that Intel chips have. THis is hard to compare as it various depending on budget.
My next PC that i am building is a dual core intel following specs and i am buying it for the roar sick power that i will get that will alow me to game well and work well.
e6600 OC@ 3ghz
Asus psw mobo
2gb-4gb ram (dunno what yet)
7950gx2
stacker 830
possibly water cooling
-money for ghz
-gaming
-number crunching (video encoding you know what i mean)
As for shear price AMD has always been good to us, I had this in mind when i bought my A64 3500+. Also amd are good for gaming.
Problem is that these pweny AMD chips dont have the roar power that Intel chips have. THis is hard to compare as it various depending on budget.
My next PC that i am building is a dual core intel following specs and i am buying it for the roar sick power that i will get that will alow me to game well and work well.
e6600 OC@ 3ghz
Asus psw mobo
2gb-4gb ram (dunno what yet)
7950gx2
stacker 830
possibly water cooling
I trust AMD, i never liked intels
| gelid wrote: |
|
e6600 OC@ 3ghz Asus psw mobo 2gb-4gb ram (dunno what yet) 7950gx2 stacker 830 possibly water cooling |
7950gx2 ? :\
Dude, you're a n00b, aren't ya' ?
No matter. Do some reading b4 you buy that crap.
well AMD has the best performance.. the new intel core 2 duo may be faster but AMD already has their quad core procs ready to jump at us...
I also have seen some benchmarks where Intel is faster than AMD (slightly though)... but... that increase is bcoz of the benchamrk's dependence on Intel tech like SSE3 or somethin like that... look at 64bit tech... AMD64>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>EM64T
I also have seen some benchmarks where Intel is faster than AMD (slightly though)... but... that increase is bcoz of the benchamrk's dependence on Intel tech like SSE3 or somethin like that... look at 64bit tech... AMD64>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>EM64T
I'm going to have to say AMD. The reasoning behind this is the fact that I game a lot, use my computer for media all the time, and I like to overclock ^_^. However a friend of mine is really into graphics intensive programs (CAD, Graphic Design, etc.) and he swears by Intel for that particular type of use. For general use though, I would have to say AMD simply because of the cost/performance issue. Unless of course you happen to work for Industrial Lights and Magic or something in which case you're using a Mac anyway heh.
-David-
-David-
If you are overclocking, AMD is still better because there are really no good Conroe overclocking boards yet. There are some decent ones, but I really think none take full advantage of the cores' capabilities. Of course, if you can get a e6600 or 6800, you will whip anything that AMD can throw at you right now. Either way, you can't go wrong with either companies nowadays.
I'll stick to intel
AMD
If you are going to do gaming go for AMD if not go for Intel
Intel always was the best, and such will be.
I dont know why but in the end, i allways choose AMD !
There is no question. P4's have an older architecture that is clearly beaten by the much newer amd 64's. Also, the Venice models have performed better than their siblings. The major benchmarks have all reported the same results. P4 cannot compete in any category, except in cases where HT comes into play. Also, Intel's dual cores obviously perform better against the x64 amd's in multi-tasking benchmarks. The amd x2 dual cores have a slight edge over the cheaply-made Pentium D dual cores.
I have an AMD Turion 64. I tell you I'm loving it. It's my first experiece with AMD, and in my books it's far better then Intel
I'm on Athlon 64 x2 Dual-Core 3800+ this is good enough.
it all depends on what your purpose is.
gaming/designing purposes AMD
other normal purposes /development/deployment purposes Intel.
gaming/designing purposes AMD
other normal purposes /development/deployment purposes Intel.
Things have been shaken up a lot by the core 2 duo that costs about $300 beating an AMD FX-62 ($1400) in all tests. Unless AMD implements some amazing new architecture in its quad-core, I am not hopeful of a comeback form AMD any time soon as there is really no use for quad-cores right now.
yup ... the intel core 2 duo is good.. but the upcoming AMD has the shear power and performance capabilites to do some serious damage to intel's short lived dominance 
...
The AMD torrenza technology is going to prove really useful to AMD partners as it will help in customization of the AMD chips... i heard from some where that AMD's quad core Opteron will have an inbuilt ATI physics engine or something.. (plz correct me if i am wrong)...
If i can dig up the article again.. i will post the link...
...
The AMD torrenza technology is going to prove really useful to AMD partners as it will help in customization of the AMD chips... i heard from some where that AMD's quad core Opteron will have an inbuilt ATI physics engine or something.. (plz correct me if i am wrong)...
If i can dig up the article again.. i will post the link...
well there is a new type of X86 processors coming from AMD .. called "Fusion"...
Well this is a design where AMD is going to integrate its Processor with ATI Graphics card at silicon level..These processors are intended for providing a kind of step-function increases in performance per watt realtive to today's "ONLY CPU" kind of architechtures....
But these babies will continue to support high end discrete video cards and physics accelarators and so on.....
AMD expects to use "Fusion" processors in all of their priority segments; including laptops, desktops, workstations and servers, and consumer electronics. They expect to come out with "Fusion" sometime later 2008 or early 2009.
AMD also plans on delivering a range of integrated platforms in 2007 to serve markets such as commercial clients, mobile computing, and gaming and media computing.
.... Now we are goin to hear that Intel has also started something like this......
Well this is a design where AMD is going to integrate its Processor with ATI Graphics card at silicon level..These processors are intended for providing a kind of step-function increases in performance per watt realtive to today's "ONLY CPU" kind of architechtures....
But these babies will continue to support high end discrete video cards and physics accelarators and so on.....
AMD expects to use "Fusion" processors in all of their priority segments; including laptops, desktops, workstations and servers, and consumer electronics. They expect to come out with "Fusion" sometime later 2008 or early 2009.
AMD also plans on delivering a range of integrated platforms in 2007 to serve markets such as commercial clients, mobile computing, and gaming and media computing.
.... Now we are goin to hear that Intel has also started something like this......
My first computer contained Intel processor and that was five years ago. I exchange it for AMD processor six months later and AMD processors own my computer since then. Why should I buy worse processor for same money?
However, Intel's Conroe is really faster that Athlon (for now) so it may be my next processor.
However, Intel's Conroe is really faster that Athlon (for now) so it may be my next processor.
I like Intel better. Especially when the Core Quad comes out...Hopefully by Leopard iMacs or something will have em.
well basically AMD 4x4 and Intel core2 duo quad has its differences... They say that AMD has better memory performance and slightly less "Per core" performance as Intel...
But Intel quad core doesnt have the same memory performance...
hmm.. well we cant say anythin now.. we will have to wait for it to release...
But Intel quad core doesnt have the same memory performance...
hmm.. well we cant say anythin now.. we will have to wait for it to release...
The AMD Intel war doesnt really bother me, i just get wat i get(im not rich so i settle for best performance:price ratio)
The Core 2 Duo's look good, i hope to get a new core 2 based sysytem at christmas.
The Core 2 Duo's look good, i hope to get a new core 2 based sysytem at christmas.
my doubt is why hasnt AMD reduced the price of its AM2 processors so as to compete with CORE 2.... 
Me = Mac
Mac = Intel
Me = Intel
My math teacher would be proud...
Mac = Intel
Me = Intel
My math teacher would be proud...
To sum up the current market:
Intel's Core 2 Duo is still on top. AMD socket 939 is very competitively priced, with dual core 3800+'s starting at around $100. They are a bit worse than Core 2 Duo, but in terms of price to performance, AMD is still on top if you go s939.
At the current moment, DDR2 is also unnecessary, and an upgrade from 939 to AM2 is completely unnecessary for AMD users. Some benchmarks even suggest DDR2 is on par with, or even slower, than DDR in some applications.
Your gaming performance and overall performance are still influenced mainly by your graphics card or RAM, the bottleneck doesn't even fall on the CPU for many single core + SLI apps in modern games, although there is some slowdown with multitasking with a low-end CPU.
For the future, AMD's quad core is showing a bit better progress than Intel, primarily because it will upscale better, allowing apps to better utilize the multiple cores. Unfortunately, only Intel has released quad-core benchmarks that I know of.
To conclude, Intel is on top with the processor war, mainly because their new Core 2 Duo architechure, combined with the large L2 cache of the E6600 and X6700 make them far superior to anything AMD can throw at them, ESPECIALLY when overclocking.
Intel's Core 2 Duo is still on top. AMD socket 939 is very competitively priced, with dual core 3800+'s starting at around $100. They are a bit worse than Core 2 Duo, but in terms of price to performance, AMD is still on top if you go s939.
At the current moment, DDR2 is also unnecessary, and an upgrade from 939 to AM2 is completely unnecessary for AMD users. Some benchmarks even suggest DDR2 is on par with, or even slower, than DDR in some applications.
Your gaming performance and overall performance are still influenced mainly by your graphics card or RAM, the bottleneck doesn't even fall on the CPU for many single core + SLI apps in modern games, although there is some slowdown with multitasking with a low-end CPU.
For the future, AMD's quad core is showing a bit better progress than Intel, primarily because it will upscale better, allowing apps to better utilize the multiple cores. Unfortunately, only Intel has released quad-core benchmarks that I know of.
To conclude, Intel is on top with the processor war, mainly because their new Core 2 Duo architechure, combined with the large L2 cache of the E6600 and X6700 make them far superior to anything AMD can throw at them, ESPECIALLY when overclocking.
AMD had been dominating intel with there 64bit line for the longest time. Finally intel got there act togeather with Conroe.
Currently intel is in the lead by a good amount, however I believe AMD will come back in the coming year or 2.
Currently intel is in the lead by a good amount, however I believe AMD will come back in the coming year or 2.
I'm using AMD for past a few years. I like it better than Intel. Currently using AMD Turion 64 X2 processor, really impressed with its performance.
I think, AMD is better. I currently have AMD (but 450, not 3800:)) and I enjoy it. And 3800 is better than errr... forgot. Anyway, AMD is better.
Well, as of my Intel is pwning on AMD...badly. And now that Intel has quad core out. So I wonder when AMD is gonna release the cpu/gpu all in one models.
yup... amd is working on thier "Fusion" processor.. it will incorporate a GPU right into the CPU.. dunno if we can use the GPU power when we are in need of more computing power and not graphics power, (for eg rendering)....
Amd is not worried abt their competition.. they know they have a good product to compete with Intel.. we will have to wait...to find out
Amd is not worried abt their competition.. they know they have a good product to compete with Intel.. we will have to wait...to find out
AMD for sure. Mine is AMD 64bit 3200+ venice core. I also have 3.0 ghz Intel processor based PC. I prefer AMD over Intel
Who do you think you are by saying that AMD is better. I had both and AMD is A bit to slow for intel. i have a notebook which has 1.3g of intel
and another of amd also 1.3 G and the AMD one is a lot slower
and another of amd also 1.3 G and the AMD one is a lot slower
Not everything is determined soley by GHz, oren. RAM, the chipset, the architechiture, the cache, and even drivers or the video card can majorly affect processor performance.
amd all the way baby... they run cooler and use less electricity so theyre a money saver. plus they're priced cheaper anyway
EDIT: and oren the clocks arent the same. a 2.4ghz amd isnt the same as a 2.4ghz intel
EDIT: and oren the clocks arent the same. a 2.4ghz amd isnt the same as a 2.4ghz intel
yup the AMDs run cooler.....but,... most of all they have good price to performance ratios...
| The_Gamer294 wrote: |
| amd all the way baby... they run cooler and use less electricity so theyre a money saver. plus they're priced cheaper anyway
|
That was the case in the days of the old prescotts. However, the C2D's run very cool and as or performance price ratio, beats AMD.
I would also go with AMD because it is faster and you can get it at a better price.
AMD nice, but it's get hot very fast. But AMD is the best to play games. Intel good in doing work. In game, not really good, but so far, not bad.
I've had 3 or 4 Intels, and have never had any problems with any of them. I had to get rd of my laptop recently, which contained a P4M, and that worked really nicely. I'm currently on a P3, which is fine, but I can't wait to get a Core 2 Duo, and a new mobo.
I've only ever had one AMD, and it was some piece of crap Duron 1400. Well, that thing lasted about 6 months before it bit the bullet. Piece of crap that was. I hope all AMD chips aren't like that, because that put a sour spin on things for me from AMD.
I've only ever had one AMD, and it was some piece of crap Duron 1400. Well, that thing lasted about 6 months before it bit the bullet. Piece of crap that was. I hope all AMD chips aren't like that, because that put a sour spin on things for me from AMD.
I currently have an amd cpu, but i believe that at the time beeing, intel core 2 duo, is much better, that athlonx2, or fx...
I believe that you shouldn't be fanatic with a company.... At some times amd is better, and at some other times, intel...thats the way it goes(same goes for ati&nvidia)...
I believe that you shouldn't be fanatic with a company.... At some times amd is better, and at some other times, intel...thats the way it goes(same goes for ati&nvidia)...
i bought a COMPAQ PRESARIO V3133 with AMD turion X2...... with 512MB DDR2 667Mhz........... and it rocks
the grpahics is awesome and much more performance from CPU than expected........
the grpahics is awesome and much more performance from CPU than expected........
I have been test driving the notebook.. and it seems its really quiet and becomes warm when i run games.. i tested UT2003 on it.. i ran it at high and performance was just stunning... including graphics....
I put the notebook thru its paces when i did a 3d rendering.. it took my old machine abt 12 hrs.. but this baby cranked out the pic at abt one and half hours....
sorry for deviating away from the topic.. but this thing is really cool... i think this can be pitted against most of the core duo laptops out there...
I put the notebook thru its paces when i did a 3d rendering.. it took my old machine abt 12 hrs.. but this baby cranked out the pic at abt one and half hours....
sorry for deviating away from the topic.. but this thing is really cool... i think this can be pitted against most of the core duo laptops out there...
INTEL core 2 quad.. is looking real good.. it surpassed.. the ATHLON FX-74 quads...
Any one got a chance to use the new 65nm AMDs. i saw the benchmarks.. its upto the mark, considering its the first wave of AMD 65nm CPUS.. the performance aint much diff from 90nm counterparts.. but the power concumption has been reduced... so the performance per watt has risen......
WAY TO GO AMD!!!.... i am still waiting for the Barcelona and Altair FX Cores...
WAY TO GO AMD!!!.... i am still waiting for the Barcelona and Altair FX Cores...
I think AMD by far are the best processors they have a faster core clocking speed and I just love the i have a AMD ATHLON 64x 4200+ with water cooling!
yeah.. i like the new x2 too.. its really power efficient......
AMD is definitely catching up Intel. I couldn't see the real difference yet. but given the competitive price. I would go for AMD.
How is AMD catching up on Intel? Their 4x4 isn't anything revolutionary, it is way ourperformed by the quad-core Kentsfields...
The only thing competitive about AMD is their pricing. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE AMD. I am typing this from a system running an Opty 146, and am probably going to have another system with an Opty 148 very soon. Intel is just ahead from a technological viewpoint right now...
The only thing competitive about AMD is their pricing. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE AMD. I am typing this from a system running an Opty 146, and am probably going to have another system with an Opty 148 very soon. Intel is just ahead from a technological viewpoint right now...
well. yeah. the current 4x4 is not that great.. but their upcoming chips are looking cool.. but we have to wait till they come out, to make a comparison...
But the figures of the AMD R600 GPU is nice... ... finally... AMD is doing its catchin up... atleast in this segment...
But the figures of the AMD R600 GPU is nice...
... finally... AMD is doing its catchin up... atleast in this segment... I currently have the AMD 3800+
I had just always thought green+green=mean as in AMD and nVidia,
i'm pretty happy with my 3800+ but after surfing around abit it seems so that intel has now got the market with the release of the core two duo.
I've always missed the cpu virtualisation with Intel because it was so much easier to alt tab between cpu intensive applications, not that it's a must have feature.
But in your situation definately go the AMD over intel, but if you were looking for a high end PC... Intel for sure they have a hold over AMD at the moment. BUT AT A PRICE!
I had just always thought green+green=mean as in AMD and nVidia,
i'm pretty happy with my 3800+ but after surfing around abit it seems so that intel has now got the market with the release of the core two duo.
I've always missed the cpu virtualisation with Intel because it was so much easier to alt tab between cpu intensive applications, not that it's a must have feature.
But in your situation definately go the AMD over intel, but if you were looking for a high end PC... Intel for sure they have a hold over AMD at the moment. BUT AT A PRICE!
true said...
well anyways.. no need to worry abt INTEL... AMD has already started chipping away INTEL's advantage... it wont be long, b4 AMD is back on top again........
Plus.. IBM is lending a helping hand... THANK U IBM ....
well anyways.. no need to worry abt INTEL... AMD has already started chipping away INTEL's advantage... it wont be long, b4 AMD is back on top again........
Plus.. IBM is lending a helping hand... THANK U IBM ....
I would go with AMD all the way. AMD is the better processor bar none! If you are highly into gaming, than AMD is the best choice no questions asked. BUT if you are more into video editing and such, than Intel would be much faster than AMD in that aspect.
tats true... Intel has optimized SSE instructions... and besides... many software out there too are optimized for SSE... so intel has an edge there.... BUT Still... AMD is gonna rule in Performance domain.... i agree. there had been some setbacks.. but still AMD is surging ahead...
DETERMINED TO TAKE THE CROWN FOR THE SECOND TIME...
DETERMINED TO TAKE THE CROWN FOR THE SECOND TIME...
I'll take the AMD anyday!
I think it depends on what you want to do with it.
But for the kind of stuff I do - lots of multitasking, not a whole lot of graphics rich multimedia, nothing outperforms the AMD. And the studies confirm what my own experience tells me! (Drat... lost the link)
Of the machines I run at home, I prefer my AMD.
I think it depends on what you want to do with it.
But for the kind of stuff I do - lots of multitasking, not a whole lot of graphics rich multimedia, nothing outperforms the AMD. And the studies confirm what my own experience tells me! (Drat... lost the link)
Of the machines I run at home, I prefer my AMD.
yup me too..
AMD ANYDAY and ALL THE WAY !!!!
i do a lot of 3d modellin... and i get really good performance from my AMD... my next machine will be an AMD too...( hopefully a barcelona )
AMD ANYDAY and ALL THE WAY !!!!
i do a lot of 3d modellin... and i get really good performance from my AMD... my next machine will be an AMD too...( hopefully a barcelona
)Maybe I should join this SPAM fest
The original post was between unknown AMD 3800+ and unknown Intel 3.4GHz and this topic became so big on discussing other than above 2 choices huh
bah somebody please CLOSE this topic
The original post was between unknown AMD 3800+ and unknown Intel 3.4GHz and this topic became so big on discussing other than above 2 choices huh
bah somebody please CLOSE this topic
hehehe... yeah... we did wander away a lot from the topic...
sorry..
sorry..
AMD ROX! saves so much more power, and gives so much more. burns out less too. AMD seems to have much more processing power than the 3.4 ghz intel, even though it says less.
I would definately stick with intel for their more recent technologies. Intel's core duo and core 2 duo lines are kicking AMD's butt right now. For the older pentium lines though I would think that AMD still had a pretty good advantage back then.
Intel has the latest stuff out, plus they have a huge market share due to apple now. what has amd done lately.... you never hear about them anymore. i personally think it's looking really bad for amd. they need something soon, and something big. Plus they need to make a big deal about it,a nd get some press coverage. no pr is hurting them. intel is getting tons...everybody knows about santa rosa, and robinson, and all of that. amd..who?
This poll is obsolete.
AMD is behind Intel Core 2 Duo, but not the Intel option listed in this thread. I suggest it being de-stickied or a new sticky created to represent the current technology.
AMD is behind Intel Core 2 Duo, but not the Intel option listed in this thread. I suggest it being de-stickied or a new sticky created to represent the current technology.
| psycosquirrel wrote: |
| This poll is obsolete.
AMD is behind Intel Core 2 Duo, but not the Intel option listed in this thread. I suggest it being de-stickied or a new sticky created to represent the current technology. |
You're right. I've edited the poll and original post to reflect this, but the two specific processor models that were originally posted haven't really been part of the discussion since about the fourth post! In my experience, any threads that mention AMD and/or Intel become a manufacturer-bashing contest between fans of each.
True.
It is quite unfortunate people won't accept unbiased views of hardware. I am an AMD user, yet I don't question Intel's superiority. Oh well, you just can't argue with some people.
It is quite unfortunate people won't accept unbiased views of hardware. I am an AMD user, yet I don't question Intel's superiority. Oh well, you just can't argue with some people.
Man is this one busy topic. There are holy wars out there.
I spend a great whack of time writing and maintaining a particular peice of software that is shall we say 'cpu intensive' - well actually not really CPU intensive but memory intensive - not quite the same as memory hungry but it spends a greant deal of time moving things around memory.
Yes we've looked at the design of it and would be nice if we had the resource to re-engineer some parts of it but that won't happen any time soon alas.
Anyway in the days of PIII's 900MHz said application was running so so and lo and behold, when users upgraded to A PIv 2G the application didn't get twice as fast it got slower. Say what.
We looked at everything and finally discocvered that Intel had decided to halve the size of their level 1 cache for the PIV and this explained the speed difference. AMD not so stupid and we discovered our app was running at twice the speed on a comparable processor.
What is irritating is that Intel clearly realised their gaffe and have now recified it on the new core duo. However try getting cache size information (I initially found Intel's cache sizes on the AMD website!) Intel obviously want to downplay this feature because of huge embarrasment.
The upshot to me that the the PIV is the Ford Edsel of processors and AMD have better technology and always will be better. Being the number 2 means you have to be technically a step ahead of the competiton. (that said - why the hell am I running this windows pile of dog doodoo as i write this)
I spend a great whack of time writing and maintaining a particular peice of software that is shall we say 'cpu intensive' - well actually not really CPU intensive but memory intensive - not quite the same as memory hungry but it spends a greant deal of time moving things around memory.
Yes we've looked at the design of it and would be nice if we had the resource to re-engineer some parts of it but that won't happen any time soon alas.
Anyway in the days of PIII's 900MHz said application was running so so and lo and behold, when users upgraded to A PIv 2G the application didn't get twice as fast it got slower.
Say what.
We looked at everything and finally discocvered that Intel had decided to halve the size of their level 1 cache for the PIV and this explained the speed difference. AMD not so stupid and we discovered our app was running at twice the speed on a comparable processor.
What is irritating is that Intel clearly realised their gaffe and have now recified it on the new core duo. However try getting cache size information (I initially found Intel's cache sizes on the AMD website!) Intel obviously want to downplay this feature because of huge embarrasment.
The upshot to me that the the PIV is the Ford Edsel of processors and AMD have better technology and always will be better. Being the number 2 means you have to be technically a step ahead of the competiton. (that said - why the hell am I running this windows pile of dog doodoo as i write this)
AMD is the best processor, its cheap and jsut about as fast as intel. I would say that AMD gives way mroe bang for the buck.
I don't know, but I have an AMD and I think it's a little slow starting up.
I voted for Intel to vote something
I voted for Intel to vote something
How has this still not been closed. All it has become is
"Oh, AMD wins. I use them."
or
"I have Intel, so it is better."
And like I said before, the original poll is old as hell. Argh, this topic makes the forums look bad because its a complete noobfest
"Oh, AMD wins. I use them."
or
"I have Intel, so it is better."
And like I said before, the original poll is old as hell. Argh, this topic makes the forums look bad because its a complete noobfest
Look at how many people choose AMD over Intel. Most people know the architecture of the AMD chip beats Intels. The only reason why Intels C2D chips are higher than AMD's X2 chips are because they are increased an extra 700-800Mhz higher than the AMD chips.
AMD is awesome for gaming. Plus the new 6000+ AMD chip actually outperforms the E6600. Pretty advanced since all AMD had to do was increase it's number. Imagine what the Quad core AMD chips would do.
AMD is awesome for gaming. Plus the new 6000+ AMD chip actually outperforms the E6600. Pretty advanced since all AMD had to do was increase it's number. Imagine what the Quad core AMD chips would do.
AGH!
Not this crap again.
Show me more than one benchmark that proves AMD beats Core 2 Duo.
I am telling you, the Core 2 Duo architecture is better. And it is NOT because of the GHz. It simply processes data faster, there is no question about it. It's not like you can say a processor will outperform another, unless you have a horribly designed app that depends entirely on L1 or L2 cache. In that case, the better processor will be whatever processor the prog is designed for.
This topic is dumb, and so is the fact that you keep acting like you know what you are talking about, jay. Go to college and study Computer Engineering, then come back in a year or two and tell me again that Core 2 Duo is worse than Athlon 64.
Agh. This thread frustrates me.
Not this crap again.
Show me more than one benchmark that proves AMD beats Core 2 Duo.
I am telling you, the Core 2 Duo architecture is better. And it is NOT because of the GHz. It simply processes data faster, there is no question about it. It's not like you can say a processor will outperform another, unless you have a horribly designed app that depends entirely on L1 or L2 cache. In that case, the better processor will be whatever processor the prog is designed for.
This topic is dumb, and so is the fact that you keep acting like you know what you are talking about, jay. Go to college and study Computer Engineering, then come back in a year or two and tell me again that Core 2 Duo is worse than Athlon 64.
Agh. This thread frustrates me.
for fear of not contributing to this fragile topic, I wish to put my two penny worth in.
I agree with PsychoSquirrel, each processor has its place in differing applications. Gaming machines obviously, by the number of posts fare better with an AMD proc, whereas the processor intensive operations of business apps, seem to benefit from Intel's architecture.
AMD wins, Intel Wins
I declare a draw !!
I agree with PsychoSquirrel, each processor has its place in differing applications. Gaming machines obviously, by the number of posts fare better with an AMD proc, whereas the processor intensive operations of business apps, seem to benefit from Intel's architecture.
AMD wins, Intel Wins
I declare a draw !!
I used to prefer AMD because I am a mucker-about and liked overclocking it, but my motherboard died a little while back so I replaced it with an Asus P5B Deluxe and it is very, very good. I have a Intel Duo 2 6600 and it absolutely flies. It really is noticebly quieter than my previous board, which is nice for the atmosphere when playing RPGs, it seems very stable and it comes with cool overclocking tools to take away the pain. It runs very well with a GEforce 8800 GTX, though there's not much room in the box for expansion cards, still, you don't need them with all the on-board stuff.
Another nice thing is that AMD are no longer the only overclocker's friend out there. This board and chip together are as flexible as hell and it all comes with built in fan control and temperature monitoring. As a combination I don't think there's much to touch it.
Another nice thing is that AMD are no longer the only overclocker's friend out there. This board and chip together are as flexible as hell and it all comes with built in fan control and temperature monitoring. As a combination I don't think there's much to touch it.
There are more things for Intel (patches...) made by Microsoft, but i prefer AMD (and i have one, too)
it truly is a toss up....
if you are a gamer or do alot of multimedia, then you want to stay with amd
If you do programs like photoshop, or other multi threaded programs then intel is the way to go..
Currently for the all out speed factor, intel is in the lead with the quad core processors... this is the 1st time in a long time that they have held this spot.
but if you are looking at cost vs preformance.. amd is the way to go (and is one of the most overclockable)
if you are a gamer or do alot of multimedia, then you want to stay with amd
If you do programs like photoshop, or other multi threaded programs then intel is the way to go..
Currently for the all out speed factor, intel is in the lead with the quad core processors... this is the 1st time in a long time that they have held this spot.
but if you are looking at cost vs preformance.. amd is the way to go (and is one of the most overclockable)
I have been an AMD fan for years, but am in the process of researching a new pc build and after doing a lot of reading, and seeing a lot of benchmark tests, my next cpu is going to be an Intel dual core. They simply outperform the AMD X2's. I hate to move away from AMD, but performance is what I am after and right now there really isn't much contest. Hopefully the AMD quad cores are going to be everything that they claim and AMD will once again be at the top of the pile.
The competition is good for both companies though because it makes them both work harder to better the other. Too bad that Mac and Windows didn't have the same type of competiton going on, as I think it would be better for both companies.
The competition is good for both companies though because it makes them both work harder to better the other. Too bad that Mac and Windows didn't have the same type of competiton going on, as I think it would be better for both companies.
*sigh* FINALLY, someone who can think rationally in this thread. Thanks, Bones.
This thread makes me angry. It needs to die. Ack. I don't know if it is the OCD about its obsolescence or the fact that this thread has become spam and more spam...
This thread makes me angry. It needs to die. Ack. I don't know if it is the OCD about its obsolescence or the fact that this thread has become spam and more spam...
AMD dual core is the best, works faster, and fast in the turn on modus.. and is easy to work with, i have 5,1 GHz, and 3 GB Ram and 800 GB memory^^ aa what a pc, but this is expensive. i dont use 800 GB i only now have used 143 GB, hahahaha.. ahh maybe i donwload some porn -_- hahaha...
and AMD have the best quality.Fast and easy c",)
and AMD have the best quality.Fast and easy c",)
You don't have 5.1GHz. The only way to reach anything near that is with phase-change or liquid nitrogen cooling, and that is on a suicide run.
AMD is NOT faster than Intel. Look up benchmarks on google-- Core 2 Duo vs Athlon X2. Core 2 Duo is faster ACROSS THE BOARD. AMD doesn't even come close!
I did get a good laugh at the 5.1 GHz thing though
AMD is NOT faster than Intel. Look up benchmarks on google-- Core 2 Duo vs Athlon X2. Core 2 Duo is faster ACROSS THE BOARD. AMD doesn't even come close!
I did get a good laugh at the 5.1 GHz thing though
ehh no i have 4.1, sorry ^^, im not finish with my pc, but the C is very high,over 105 ^^,) hahaha LOL LOL LOL...
liquid nitrogen cooling, and that is on a suicide run^^ ehh, ok i have that(i have 2 sets, but they dont work ^^,) , so buut AMD is not faster or less, bec intel isnt the BEST hard u can get!! ^^ go to China, look in the Pc shops!!
Ehh i have dual core, with media center, so i dont Care what u say! c",). the best Pc in the work cost over 400.000 NOK, with 9.3 GhZ and over 5 Terrabyte, with AMD Turion, so dont say that Intel is the fastes Pcs in the world, if Google say that intel is better it must be years ago... think about what u say!!!^^ im not into lame talk....
I did get a good laugh at the 5.1 GHz thing though
yeah me 2... lolled you
^^,) hahaha LOL LOL LOL...
liquid nitrogen cooling, and that is on a suicide run^^ ehh, ok i have that(i have 2 sets, but they dont work ^^,) , so buut AMD is not faster or less, bec intel isnt the BEST hard u can get!! ^^ go to China, look in the Pc shops!!
Ehh i have dual core, with media center, so i dont Care what u say! c",).
the best Pc in the work cost over 400.000 NOK, with 9.3 GhZ and over 5 Terrabyte, with AMD Turion, so dont say that Intel is the fastes Pcs in the world, if Google say that intel is better it must be years ago... think about what u say!!!^^ im not into lame talk....
I did get a good laugh at the 5.1 GHz thing though
yeah me 2... lolled you
9.3 GHz? How does that work? You can't add cores to get frequencies, and even if you could, the quad-core Intels would still be faster.
You can't trust vendors. I'm speaking from experience here, they will tell you ANYTHING to move product, and it is easier to move AMD than Intel because they are easier to obtain.
Sounds like you have a good system, what are its specifications?
You can't trust vendors. I'm speaking from experience here, they will tell you ANYTHING to move product, and it is easier to move AMD than Intel because they are easier to obtain.
Sounds like you have a good system, what are its specifications?
| TGWAdmin wrote: |
| I would go with Intel. It seems that Intel is easier to determine how fast the processor is. With AMD, first-time buyers don't know the actual speed of the processor. I mean I've been around computers pretty much all my life (which is about 13 years). I still don't understand how exactly the AMD processors rank and if the actual processor speed in Ghz is the same as the number with the model of the processor. For example, is an AMD Sempron 2800+ mean that the computer has a 2.8 Ghz processor? It makes no sense. Intel is much easier to understand and I think is better overall. |
If you would bother to read a few things out... AMD Sempron 2800+ acts like a P4 at 2800 mHz. In case you didn't knew, the real measurement unit in processor power is the FLOPS... AMD researched a technology specially to make the FLOPS and mHz factors to be asimetric. Intel usually gets Flops by increasing the mHz's. This causes the heat to increase, etc.
AMD spent tones of money on research on how to stop this from happening. So they found a way to increase the FLOPS withought increasing the frequency as much. So when you see a 2800+ processor, it's actually calculated on the "old" thinking style as to translate the mHz's in flops. This is why AMD procs are cooler and sometimes better than Intel's.
And also, think about Opterons. It beat the shit out of Intel... AMD is simply better.
You can't compare Opteron and the P4 if you are talking about modern processors. The P4 cores (Northwood, etc) were hot and EASILY beaten by AMD's Opterons and Athlons. The problem is that Intel has a new core out, and AMD has had no response to it. The new core, Core 2 duo (or Conroe), is better than AMD in any way, even their costly quads or the FX series.
Since everyone is too lazy to do a google search and actually RESEARCH what is better, I will do it for you. I went to google, and simply typed intel vs amd. Here is a link for the lazy: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=intel+vs+amd&btnG=Google+Search
The first article that comes up is from a site called The Tech Report. They compare seven models from both companies best lineup of processors, and the results are obvious:
Source: http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/cpus/index.x?pg=14, article starts at http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/cpus/index.x?pg=14
Next, google found a result that directly pertains to most of the morons in here, who insist that AMD is better ONLY for gaming, but Intel is better for everything else. I could have, no wait, I already did several times, that overall performance = performance in games. The article is by Extreme Tech and concludes:
Source: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1996946,00.asp, article starts at http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1997005,00.asp
The next article from google is one discussing power consumption. I don't think this is a good basis for comparison, with cheap and good power supplies being so common nowadays. Nonetheless, Intel wins. Again.
Source: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=273
The next article is nearly two years old and discusses how Opteron is better than Xeon, which was completely true... Two years ago. Now the Xeons run on the Core 2 Duo architecture and dominate just as much as the standard cores. The next few articles are equally old, and give no mention to Core 2 duo. Therefore, they are not even worth considering in this argument.
So-- What can we conclude?
- Intel outperforms AMD in general, when comparing the most modern cores that have been released.
- AMD was better than Intel, especially back in the early days of the Athlon. We clearly see that from the outdated articles on Google that do not include Core 2 Duo.
- Intel performs better than AMD in games. Actually, way better. AMD is crushed again.
But why does everyone continue to insist that AMD is better? It is clearly not so, and that is why this topic annoys me. People read previous posts, and know they are running an AMD core, and therefore readily conclude what they have is better. I am a PROUD socket 939 owner. My Opteron 146 was the best processor I have EVER had, by far! But it is blatantly obvious that its time has past, and Intel has snatched the lead back from AMD with Core 2 Duo. Who knows-- someday, AMD may climb back up to the top. Thus is the nature of computing. A year ago, AMD was better. Now, it is Intel. Who knows, a year from now, even VIA CPUs could have the best performance; we really have no way of knowing. But you can't argue the facts about the present. Intel's Core 2 Duo outperforms any and all of AMD's cores, no matter how you skew the results.
Since everyone is too lazy to do a google search and actually RESEARCH what is better, I will do it for you. I went to google, and simply typed intel vs amd. Here is a link for the lazy: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=intel+vs+amd&btnG=Google+Search
The first article that comes up is from a site called The Tech Report. They compare seven models from both companies best lineup of processors, and the results are obvious:
| Quote: |
| The fact that Intel retains the overall performance crown comes as no surprise. As we said at the outset, AMD has no real answer to the Core 2 Extreme X6800 among its dual-core processors... This one-two punch has allowed Intel to maintain a performance edge at most price points, despite standing pat through AMD's aggressive pricing moves and new model introductions. AMD's current weaknesses manifest themselves most fully in its high-end models, like the Athlon 64 X2 6000+, which draws more power at peak than the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 yet is often outperformed by the less expensive Core 2 Duo E6600. |
Next, google found a result that directly pertains to most of the morons in here, who insist that AMD is better ONLY for gaming, but Intel is better for everything else. I could have, no wait, I already did several times, that overall performance = performance in games. The article is by Extreme Tech and concludes:
| Quote: |
| It has quickly become a dual-core world, and Intel's introduction of a whole new processor architecture has made a huge difference. Though the games are more demanding this year, tables have turned completely, with the Core 2 Duo now winning every single test against the comparable Athlon 64 X2—the exact reverse of last year. |
The next article from google is one discussing power consumption. I don't think this is a good basis for comparison, with cheap and good power supplies being so common nowadays. Nonetheless, Intel wins. Again.
| Quote: |
| AMD's overall power consumption was actually 66 watts higher than Intel! |
The next article is nearly two years old and discusses how Opteron is better than Xeon, which was completely true... Two years ago. Now the Xeons run on the Core 2 Duo architecture and dominate just as much as the standard cores. The next few articles are equally old, and give no mention to Core 2 duo. Therefore, they are not even worth considering in this argument.
So-- What can we conclude?
- Intel outperforms AMD in general, when comparing the most modern cores that have been released.
- AMD was better than Intel, especially back in the early days of the Athlon. We clearly see that from the outdated articles on Google that do not include Core 2 Duo.
- Intel performs better than AMD in games. Actually, way better. AMD is crushed again.
But why does everyone continue to insist that AMD is better? It is clearly not so, and that is why this topic annoys me. People read previous posts, and know they are running an AMD core, and therefore readily conclude what they have is better. I am a PROUD socket 939 owner. My Opteron 146 was the best processor I have EVER had, by far! But it is blatantly obvious that its time has past, and Intel has snatched the lead back from AMD with Core 2 Duo. Who knows-- someday, AMD may climb back up to the top. Thus is the nature of computing. A year ago, AMD was better. Now, it is Intel. Who knows, a year from now, even VIA CPUs could have the best performance; we really have no way of knowing. But you can't argue the facts about the present. Intel's Core 2 Duo outperforms any and all of AMD's cores, no matter how you skew the results.
Amd is better for Gameserver Linux
Intel is better for a computer gamer home computer
Intel is better for a computer gamer home computer
Did you even read my post?
Ugh.
Ugh.
Although right now I'm running an Intel, I do believe that AMD's processors are better at this time. AMD and Intel just seem to be playing leap-frog; one releases something better than the other, and the other releases something better than what the other did...on and on just trying to get ahead of each other. AMD beat Intel to 64-bit processors, so Intel has some catching up to do, especially since Windows Vista comes out this year (unless Microsofts sets it back AGAIN)...
Intel has had 64bit for ages. Their 64bit architecture is much more efficient than AMD's...
Why does no one think that Intel has 64-bit? They have had it for ages...
Why does no one think that Intel has 64-bit? They have had it for ages...
I`ve got an Intel Processor and it works very good. But IM not a professional computer master so I cant say which of both is better and why.
| psycosquirrel wrote: |
| Intel has had 64bit for ages. Their 64bit architecture is much more efficient than AMD's...
Why does no one think that Intel has 64-bit? They have had it for ages... |
I think you're talking about Intel's Xeon line of processors which are primarily used for servers and are actually 64-bit... However, those Intel Xeon processors are different from most of today's 64-bit CPUs used primarily for the desktop. Those 64-bit desktop CPUs are actually x86 CPUs with 64-bit extensions which is now known as Intel's EM64T or more popularly as AMD's AMD64. These 64-bit CPUs, also known as x86_64, as far as I can remember, can run 32-bit legacy apps due to their x86 nature unlike the Intel Xeon processors that have a completely different architecture as compared to their x86_64 counterparts...
I apreciate the Dual Core processors from intel
psycosquirrel has it right. Right now the core 2 duo is better in every way. I actually prefer amd, but the stats don't lie. After around 2 years of AMD being better the core 2 duo won it back for intel. However, for amd fans like me, remember that the X2 is a bit older tech, so no doubt it AMD releases a new cpu it'll be loads better. It's a pretty back and forth war overall.
I think AMD is better..
I have AMD now, price wise it cant be beat but i've had heating issues with it and some compatability issues, next processor i'm getting is an Intel. They are both good processors I wouldnt say one is that much better than the other.
I agree with the points raised by wrightbros that the main factor behind most users choosing AMD is the lower cost vs performance. I have used both Intel and AMD and I have now stuck with AMD (for the time being anyway). My first encounter with AMD was one that met with lots of problems. The PC would often freeze/reset etc at will and when it did reset or needed resetting the system would only successfully reboot if the machine was shutdown completely and started from cold. Now though my experience of AMD has been much improved proviing a fast and stable system, which cost considerably less than an Intel equivalent.
I'm not in the mood to argue, but just a little insight.
1. Core 2 Duo may get better benches against X2 by AMD, but it isnt even a fair test. C2D is 65nm and intels latest chip. AMD X2 is 90nm, and has stayed the same for years. Of course 65nm is gonna score better than 90nm. C'mon people. You should know better.
2. Intel's Quad Core sucks, and AMD does win at Quad Core. The Reason? Intel Quad isnt really a Quad Core. It is a Core 2 Duo with Hyper Threading. It is a simulated quad core, like the P4 with HT was a simulated Dual-Core. Doesn't means it is. AMD's Quad Core processor is actually 4 cores. And it is an impressive piece of technology.
3. If you look at benchmarks, AMD has stayed right up there with Intel after using the same processors for years compared to Intels latest. If you compare Intel Processors to the AMD equivalent that came out around the same time, the AMD wins the most benchmarks. At least 95% of the ones I have seen. (yes I have looked at hundreds of benchmarks).
That is all.
1. Core 2 Duo may get better benches against X2 by AMD, but it isnt even a fair test. C2D is 65nm and intels latest chip. AMD X2 is 90nm, and has stayed the same for years. Of course 65nm is gonna score better than 90nm. C'mon people. You should know better.
2. Intel's Quad Core sucks, and AMD does win at Quad Core. The Reason? Intel Quad isnt really a Quad Core. It is a Core 2 Duo with Hyper Threading. It is a simulated quad core, like the P4 with HT was a simulated Dual-Core. Doesn't means it is. AMD's Quad Core processor is actually 4 cores. And it is an impressive piece of technology.
3. If you look at benchmarks, AMD has stayed right up there with Intel after using the same processors for years compared to Intels latest. If you compare Intel Processors to the AMD equivalent that came out around the same time, the AMD wins the most benchmarks. At least 95% of the ones I have seen. (yes I have looked at hundreds of benchmarks).
That is all.
I don't like intel, because;
1. They are (generally) more expensive.
2. They (generally) run hotter than AMD processors.
and 3. Thier marketing tactics, they try to steal AMD's customers by forcing them to use intel chips in whatever way they can
1. They are (generally) more expensive.
2. They (generally) run hotter than AMD processors.
and 3. Thier marketing tactics, they try to steal AMD's customers by forcing them to use intel chips in whatever way they can
| Kleopatra wrote: |
| I don't like intel, because;
1. They are (generally) more expensive. 2. They (generally) run hotter than AMD processors. and 3. Thier marketing tactics, they try to steal AMD's customers by forcing them to use intel chips in whatever way they can |
how does intel "force" anyone to use their chips? I think that your points 1 and 2 where true about 9 months ago, but since intel release their new core 2 platform, AMD has been really struggling to keep up. they've been 2 steps behind for a while now, and they've already slipped on some release dates which isn't helping either.
I recently upgraded to Intel after using AMD for the last 4 chips I bought. The dual core processor is just faster, and for the heavy stuff I do for work I like a fast chip.
From the sounds of it, AMD seems better, i have never used one, although i do have a intel hyperthreading cpu, and the whole, multi-tasking deal is crap, some programs only use one processor, so they only run at half speed.
My processor is an AMD Sempron 3000+ and it serves me well. only real problem i have with this computer is the horribly low 256MB ram 
Intel has faster CPU's, that's a fact. But I think that it's still better purchase to buy AMD, at least for mid and low-end computers because they are faster than Intel for the same price.
Intel processors are merely clocked faster physically. Performance wise, AMD is better. It can do better work at lower clock speeds. This also results in less power consumption, and way lower temperatures. (comparing 90nm technology). And AMD is THE BEST for high-end/Gaming machines. Period. So whoever thinks AMD is for mid-low end PC's doesnt have a clue about what they're talking about, and should probably not be trying to give advice until they do some actual research and real benchmarks/testing.
As far as people looking to switch to Intel from AMD. Don't bother. You will be wasting your money, and your time.
Do a search on AMD Phenom. You will see what I mean.
Here are the only things I will say about it here for now.
1. New sockets (AM2+ [transitional] and AM3)
2. New HT speeds
3. Seems to be replacing the Athlon Series
I guarantee they things blow Intel's Core 2 series out of the water by far. You will see why when you look at specs.
As far as people looking to switch to Intel from AMD. Don't bother. You will be wasting your money, and your time.
Do a search on AMD Phenom. You will see what I mean.
Here are the only things I will say about it here for now.
1. New sockets (AM2+ [transitional] and AM3)
2. New HT speeds
3. Seems to be replacing the Athlon Series
I guarantee they things blow Intel's Core 2 series out of the water by far. You will see why when you look at specs.
The new Intel core 2 series is obviously much better than the current AMD processors available.
Intel- The best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be
| Fake wrote: |
| Intel- The best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be |
And people like you are the reason people DONT listen to Intel lovers. Not only is there no explanation, but Intel sucked for many many years.
Dont post if your going to act like an idiot.
I'm going to try to address as many people as possible here, because this topic annoys me.
1) How is manufacturing process relevant to ANYTHING? I don't care if my car has a V6 or an inline 6, as long as it is faster than my neighbor's car.
2) AMD doesn't even have a quad-core on the market. And I can respond with the same counterargument as I did for point 1; how is that relevant at all? The system has four physical cores that it can read and do operations on. If they are not on the same die, that just means thermal dissipation is better, allowing the Intel cores to be more reliable and hit way higher overclocks. The new q6600 G0s are hitting obscenely high frequencies for that reason.
3) We aren't talking about the past. We are talking about NOW. All that is relevant is what consumers will be purchasing today. And the bottom line is, AMD still has no answer to Core 2 Duo. Phenom looks promising, but we won't see it for a few more months. Therefore, it isn't even worth discussion.
-----
1) Are they? Actually, Intel has better price / performance right now for every tier, other than the lowest-end processors (we are talking sub-$75 processors here). The difference there is negligible too, so it is down to preference.
2) True for socket 478. Northwood was a hot and crappy core. Intel's Core 2 Duos run a lot cooler than the Athlons. I can say this with 100% certainty, because I own both. My e6300 runs ambient on watercooling, whereas my Opteron 146 wouldn't hit less than 30c on water. It's the same story with stock cooling; the e6300 was hitting high-30's load, while the Opty was hitting low 50's.
3) Huh? That makes no sense. You will need to elaborate.
-----
Intels are more efficient than AMDs, regardless of frequency. Higher frequency + better architecture = better performance.
AMD AND INTEL are good for anything, both companies produce great software. I hate it when IDIOTS say that one is better or worse for "gaming." Either way you look at it-- with rendering, office use, or gaming-- the processor is simply doing floating-point calculations. So whichever can do more per second, works better. Intel wipes the floor with AMD with performance in all categories, gaming or otherwise. I don't even think you bothered to read my old posts in this thread that linked to benchmarks, unanimously declaring Intel to be faster. They are the first google search results too, not some sneaky sites I dug up just to spite AMD fanboys.
Your next statement makes no sense. You say that Intel is worse than AMD, then state that it would be a waste for Intel users to switch to AMD. Are you bipolar, a hypocrite, or just ignorant?
So AMD has a new series coming out. Is Intel sitting back, and just watching? No way. They spend more on R&D than AMD is even worth. Intel will have an answer to Phenom before it is even out. AMD has been trampled by Core 2 Duo, and it will take them awhile to get back up.
The benchmarks for Phenom so far are speculative, at best. We won't know anything until they release chips for testing, instead of feeding you fanboys propaganda.
Oh, and let me guess. You are an avid AMD fanboy, with a high-end chip in your system. Get over yourself. Just because you have the hardware in your system doesn't mean it is the best, no matter how much you paid for it. Take a piece of advice from someone who runs on both sides of the fence (I have MANY AMD and Intel systems I both own and/or support)-- Intel is unanimously better, at this moment. Hopefully, things will change, because a market shift means us consumers will see more performance for less money. But, I can say that it is unlikely for that to happen in the next year.
-----
Intel sucked for many years? Were you around for the DECADE that no business would buy AMD because they were made in foreign countries by children, with no regard to quality control?
Maybe you should take your own advice and shut up, before you make yourself seem like even more of a moron.
| DarkAkira wrote: |
| I'm not in the mood to argue, but just a little insight.
1. Core 2 Duo may get better benches against X2 by AMD, but it isnt even a fair test. C2D is 65nm and intels latest chip. AMD X2 is 90nm, and has stayed the same for years. Of course 65nm is gonna score better than 90nm. C'mon people. You should know better. 2. Intel's Quad Core sucks, and AMD does win at Quad Core. The Reason? Intel Quad isnt really a Quad Core. It is a Core 2 Duo with Hyper Threading. It is a simulated quad core, like the P4 with HT was a simulated Dual-Core. Doesn't means it is. AMD's Quad Core processor is actually 4 cores. And it is an impressive piece of technology. 3. If you look at benchmarks, AMD has stayed right up there with Intel after using the same processors for years compared to Intels latest. If you compare Intel Processors to the AMD equivalent that came out around the same time, the AMD wins the most benchmarks. At least 95% of the ones I have seen. (yes I have looked at hundreds of benchmarks). That is all. |
1) How is manufacturing process relevant to ANYTHING? I don't care if my car has a V6 or an inline 6, as long as it is faster than my neighbor's car.
2) AMD doesn't even have a quad-core on the market. And I can respond with the same counterargument as I did for point 1; how is that relevant at all? The system has four physical cores that it can read and do operations on. If they are not on the same die, that just means thermal dissipation is better, allowing the Intel cores to be more reliable and hit way higher overclocks. The new q6600 G0s are hitting obscenely high frequencies for that reason.
3) We aren't talking about the past. We are talking about NOW. All that is relevant is what consumers will be purchasing today. And the bottom line is, AMD still has no answer to Core 2 Duo. Phenom looks promising, but we won't see it for a few more months. Therefore, it isn't even worth discussion.
-----
| Kleopatra wrote: |
| I don't like intel, because;
1. They are (generally) more expensive. 2. They (generally) run hotter than AMD processors. and 3. Thier marketing tactics, they try to steal AMD's customers by forcing them to use intel chips in whatever way they can |
1) Are they? Actually, Intel has better price / performance right now for every tier, other than the lowest-end processors (we are talking sub-$75 processors here). The difference there is negligible too, so it is down to preference.
2) True for socket 478. Northwood was a hot and crappy core. Intel's Core 2 Duos run a lot cooler than the Athlons. I can say this with 100% certainty, because I own both. My e6300 runs ambient on watercooling, whereas my Opteron 146 wouldn't hit less than 30c on water. It's the same story with stock cooling; the e6300 was hitting high-30's load, while the Opty was hitting low 50's.
3) Huh? That makes no sense. You will need to elaborate.
-----
| DarkAkira wrote: |
| Intel processors are merely clocked faster physically. Performance wise, AMD is better. It can do better work at lower clock speeds. This also results in less power consumption, and way lower temperatures. (comparing 90nm technology). And AMD is THE BEST for high-end/Gaming machines. Period. So whoever thinks AMD is for mid-low end PC's doesnt have a clue about what they're talking about, and should probably not be trying to give advice until they do some actual research and real benchmarks/testing.
As far as people looking to switch to Intel from AMD. Don't bother. You will be wasting your money, and your time. Do a search on AMD Phenom. You will see what I mean. Here are the only things I will say about it here for now. 1. New sockets (AM2+ [transitional] and AM3) 2. New HT speeds 3. Seems to be replacing the Athlon Series I guarantee they things blow Intel's Core 2 series out of the water by far. You will see why when you look at specs. |
Intels are more efficient than AMDs, regardless of frequency. Higher frequency + better architecture = better performance.
AMD AND INTEL are good for anything, both companies produce great software. I hate it when IDIOTS say that one is better or worse for "gaming." Either way you look at it-- with rendering, office use, or gaming-- the processor is simply doing floating-point calculations. So whichever can do more per second, works better. Intel wipes the floor with AMD with performance in all categories, gaming or otherwise. I don't even think you bothered to read my old posts in this thread that linked to benchmarks, unanimously declaring Intel to be faster. They are the first google search results too, not some sneaky sites I dug up just to spite AMD fanboys.
Your next statement makes no sense. You say that Intel is worse than AMD, then state that it would be a waste for Intel users to switch to AMD. Are you bipolar, a hypocrite, or just ignorant?
So AMD has a new series coming out. Is Intel sitting back, and just watching? No way. They spend more on R&D than AMD is even worth. Intel will have an answer to Phenom before it is even out. AMD has been trampled by Core 2 Duo, and it will take them awhile to get back up.
The benchmarks for Phenom so far are speculative, at best. We won't know anything until they release chips for testing, instead of feeding you fanboys propaganda.
Oh, and let me guess. You are an avid AMD fanboy, with a high-end chip in your system. Get over yourself. Just because you have the hardware in your system doesn't mean it is the best, no matter how much you paid for it. Take a piece of advice from someone who runs on both sides of the fence (I have MANY AMD and Intel systems I both own and/or support)-- Intel is unanimously better, at this moment. Hopefully, things will change, because a market shift means us consumers will see more performance for less money. But, I can say that it is unlikely for that to happen in the next year.
-----
| DarkAkira wrote: | ||
And people like you are the reason people DONT listen to Intel lovers. Not only is there no explanation, but Intel sucked for many many years. Dont post if your going to act like an idiot. |
Intel sucked for many years? Were you around for the DECADE that no business would buy AMD because they were made in foreign countries by children, with no regard to quality control?
Maybe you should take your own advice and shut up, before you make yourself seem like even more of a moron.
Im not gonna quote to much form above me, but here is a few things.
You made no sense there. I said that people SHOULDNT switch TO Intel FROM AMD. There was no mistake in my text, you read it wrong.
And as far as the rest of the post. I dont know why your are TRYING to start an argument. Contrary to what you believe about me, I use Intel and AMD in my household. As a matter of fact, 1/2 of my network is Intel. And I have a 24 computer network just in my house. Not including all my servers. So please, dont make judgments about me thinking i am an avid AMD fanboy or something like that. And I do not have a high-end chip in my system. I am still running a socket 939 X@ 4600+ in my personal system.
As far as Core 2 Duo "trampling" Athlon....
Yes it does, but Core 2 Duo is MUCH newer than the current AMD processors. It does get better benchmark scores, but when you think about it, its not too much of a fair test. Benchmarks is comparing 4-6 month old processors to 2-3 year old processors. Yes Core 2 Duo will win, but it is easing latest technology, where as the AMD's used for benchmarking is now out-dated technology. How can that be considered a fair judgment to which company processor is better? Compare a socket 478 P4 to a socket 754 Athlon. That would be more fair. Or a 775 Pentium D to a 939 Athlon X2. Again, that would be a more fair comparison. Then at least the 2 would be from the same time period, as opposed to years apart. And you say we're talking about now, but the Core 2 Duos weren't even out when this thread was started.
I dont know what overclocking has to do with anything about Quad-Core performance, but whatever. AMD can overclock to great frequencies too. It all depends on cooling for the processors, and the voltage needed to keep it stable.
I realize Phenom isnt out yet, but it doesnt mean it isnt great. People were ranting and raving about Core 2 Duo when it wasnt even out yet. So who cares. Just because it isnt out doesnt mean and cant be included in discussion. It IS coming, and it is a HUGE performance gain for AMD.
Also... from my experiences, I think AMD is better. Yes it is my opinon, and I think i am entitled to my opinion. I dont know WHY you have to insult me, and complain about what I post. Seems like your just pissed that I dont really like Intel. I just feel that Intel makes alot of mistakes.
For exmaple...
They come out with new processors WAYYYYY to often. People just buy the new one, and another comes out. Then its just a waste of hundreds of dollars. AMD on the other hand, takes there time releasing chips, and the chips they release last for years and years. I had a socket A Athlon K6 (i think) at 1.0 GHz for almost 6 years. Even after all that time, my system still out-performed a system running a P4 3.0GHz (with HTT) on socket 478. Even after it being so old. That is one of the reason I prefer AMD. It lasts me for as long as I need it to.
And as far as gaming, AMD has always been better for gaming in my personal experiences. I have done my own benchmarks and tests, and my AMD rigs have always out-performed and out-lasted their Intel counterparts.
So please, dont get angry because I dont prefer Intel. Its an opinon thread. And when I said idiot to the other post, it was merely because they said Intel is better, but gave absolutely no reason for it at all, which is very irritating (to me at least).
| Quote: |
| Your next statement makes no sense. You say that Intel is worse than AMD, then state that it would be a waste for Intel users to switch to AMD. Are you bipolar, a hypocrite, or just ignorant?
|
You made no sense there. I said that people SHOULDNT switch TO Intel FROM AMD. There was no mistake in my text, you read it wrong.
And as far as the rest of the post. I dont know why your are TRYING to start an argument. Contrary to what you believe about me, I use Intel and AMD in my household. As a matter of fact, 1/2 of my network is Intel. And I have a 24 computer network just in my house. Not including all my servers. So please, dont make judgments about me thinking i am an avid AMD fanboy or something like that. And I do not have a high-end chip in my system. I am still running a socket 939 X@ 4600+ in my personal system.
As far as Core 2 Duo "trampling" Athlon....
Yes it does, but Core 2 Duo is MUCH newer than the current AMD processors. It does get better benchmark scores, but when you think about it, its not too much of a fair test. Benchmarks is comparing 4-6 month old processors to 2-3 year old processors. Yes Core 2 Duo will win, but it is easing latest technology, where as the AMD's used for benchmarking is now out-dated technology. How can that be considered a fair judgment to which company processor is better? Compare a socket 478 P4 to a socket 754 Athlon. That would be more fair. Or a 775 Pentium D to a 939 Athlon X2. Again, that would be a more fair comparison. Then at least the 2 would be from the same time period, as opposed to years apart. And you say we're talking about now, but the Core 2 Duos weren't even out when this thread was started.
I dont know what overclocking has to do with anything about Quad-Core performance, but whatever. AMD can overclock to great frequencies too. It all depends on cooling for the processors, and the voltage needed to keep it stable.
I realize Phenom isnt out yet, but it doesnt mean it isnt great. People were ranting and raving about Core 2 Duo when it wasnt even out yet. So who cares. Just because it isnt out doesnt mean and cant be included in discussion. It IS coming, and it is a HUGE performance gain for AMD.
Also... from my experiences, I think AMD is better. Yes it is my opinon, and I think i am entitled to my opinion. I dont know WHY you have to insult me, and complain about what I post. Seems like your just pissed that I dont really like Intel. I just feel that Intel makes alot of mistakes.
For exmaple...
They come out with new processors WAYYYYY to often. People just buy the new one, and another comes out. Then its just a waste of hundreds of dollars. AMD on the other hand, takes there time releasing chips, and the chips they release last for years and years. I had a socket A Athlon K6 (i think) at 1.0 GHz for almost 6 years. Even after all that time, my system still out-performed a system running a P4 3.0GHz (with HTT) on socket 478. Even after it being so old. That is one of the reason I prefer AMD. It lasts me for as long as I need it to.
And as far as gaming, AMD has always been better for gaming in my personal experiences. I have done my own benchmarks and tests, and my AMD rigs have always out-performed and out-lasted their Intel counterparts.
So please, dont get angry because I dont prefer Intel. Its an opinon thread. And when I said idiot to the other post, it was merely because they said Intel is better, but gave absolutely no reason for it at all, which is very irritating (to me at least).
DarkAkira, It doesn't matter that the AMD processors you buy today are 2-year old technology, it doesn't make it unfair to compare them.
That is just like saying "Commodore 64 is better, because several years ago it could do this while others could do less". That does not make the Commodore a good PC to use in 2007.
psychosquirrel:
I recently bought an AMD system. AMD64 X2 5600 is the processor. Why did I buy it? At that time I knew Intel was better. I bought an AMD because an AM2 mobo + the AMD processor was cheaper then an Intel mobo + an intel processor.
If you compare processor vs processor Intel is more bang for the buck, but motherboards that support intel are more expensive (at least at the store where I bought it, and several others I checked for pricing), so if you're buying an new system, and don't need a really high-end system (I don't count my system as high-end) AMD is your best bet.
If you were wondering, the mobo was an MSI K9N Neo that was priced somewhere near 60 euro, and the processor was 144 euro something.
That is just like saying "Commodore 64 is better, because several years ago it could do this while others could do less". That does not make the Commodore a good PC to use in 2007.
psychosquirrel:
I recently bought an AMD system. AMD64 X2 5600 is the processor. Why did I buy it? At that time I knew Intel was better. I bought an AMD because an AM2 mobo + the AMD processor was cheaper then an Intel mobo + an intel processor.
If you compare processor vs processor Intel is more bang for the buck, but motherboards that support intel are more expensive (at least at the store where I bought it, and several others I checked for pricing), so if you're buying an new system, and don't need a really high-end system (I don't count my system as high-end) AMD is your best bet.
If you were wondering, the mobo was an MSI K9N Neo that was priced somewhere near 60 euro, and the processor was 144 euro something.
....
I say it is unfair to compare for a reason though. 90% of people who love intel say it is better because of those benchmarks (at least on every forum that I see a thread like this). They base their opinion of AMDand its processors on a benchmark comparing 2-3 year old technology to 6month-1 year old technology. That is why I say its unfair. It is a good test to just see comparisons, but to say AMD sucks and Intel rules based solely on those tests, then it is an unfair test. And I believe (again, just my OPINION) that people like that should do comparisons of 2 processors from the same time-frame.
I dont know how much more clear I can make that.
I say it is unfair to compare for a reason though. 90% of people who love intel say it is better because of those benchmarks (at least on every forum that I see a thread like this). They base their opinion of AMDand its processors on a benchmark comparing 2-3 year old technology to 6month-1 year old technology. That is why I say its unfair. It is a good test to just see comparisons, but to say AMD sucks and Intel rules based solely on those tests, then it is an unfair test. And I believe (again, just my OPINION) that people like that should do comparisons of 2 processors from the same time-frame.
I dont know how much more clear I can make that.
I think you are perfectly clear, but I still disagree
If you have to buy an CPU right now and you want the best you can get then you'll have to go with intel, because AMD's most recent PC is based on 2-years-old technology, and this makes it slower.
Maybe AMD will get an advantage with Phenom, and then AMD will be the best to buy, that's possible. Maybe SPARC will suddenly make a comeback and be the #1 CPU to use, you never know
If you have to buy an CPU right now and you want the best you can get then you'll have to go with intel, because AMD's most recent PC is based on 2-years-old technology, and this makes it slower.
Maybe AMD will get an advantage with Phenom, and then AMD will be the best to buy, that's possible. Maybe SPARC will suddenly make a comeback and be the #1 CPU to use, you never know
Well... if you disagree then go ahead.
We are all entitled to our own opinions.
We are all entitled to our own opinions.
Very true. But the reason I avidly argue Intel's superiority is to avoid confusion for inexperienced users who may read this (now overly complicated, outdated, and very long) thread.
I respect your opinion, and understand how you came up with your preference for AMD. I am simply stating that the cores Intel makes RIGHT NOW are better performing for the price than the cores AMD makes RIGHT NOW. And for the end consumer, that is all that matters. Hence me saying Intel is currently better.
I loved the Athlon architecture; it blew Northwood out of the water. But, Core 2 Duo is so much better that it is hard, and foolish, to draw a comparison. If anything, the age difference between the architectures is enough reason not to argue, agree that Intel is better (simply because it is newer), and assume that AMD will come out with a new core that will be faster. If you think about it, that is all that ever really happens. The company that produces the most superior core is generally the one with the newest architecture. And right now, Intel is the newest.
Arno- My old system had a socket 939 Opteron 146 for that exact reason. I only made the jump to Core 2 Duo when I could get an amazing motherboard for under $150.
Akira- You mention that you run 24 computers at home... That's a lot of systems. But the number of systems you run indicates in no way how much you know about computers. 24 systems is NOTHING, especially because, to have that many, most would be outdated. There is simply no need to accumulate computers like that for me. I need a laptop, desktop, and a few servers for my needs. I have 8 systems right now, and I'm trying to get rid of all but 3 because the rest are relatively old (P4 2GHz, 1Gb RAM, 5 or 6 series graphics).
I respect your opinion, and understand how you came up with your preference for AMD. I am simply stating that the cores Intel makes RIGHT NOW are better performing for the price than the cores AMD makes RIGHT NOW. And for the end consumer, that is all that matters. Hence me saying Intel is currently better.
I loved the Athlon architecture; it blew Northwood out of the water. But, Core 2 Duo is so much better that it is hard, and foolish, to draw a comparison. If anything, the age difference between the architectures is enough reason not to argue, agree that Intel is better (simply because it is newer), and assume that AMD will come out with a new core that will be faster. If you think about it, that is all that ever really happens. The company that produces the most superior core is generally the one with the newest architecture. And right now, Intel is the newest.
Arno- My old system had a socket 939 Opteron 146 for that exact reason. I only made the jump to Core 2 Duo when I could get an amazing motherboard for under $150.
Akira- You mention that you run 24 computers at home... That's a lot of systems. But the number of systems you run indicates in no way how much you know about computers. 24 systems is NOTHING, especially because, to have that many, most would be outdated. There is simply no need to accumulate computers like that for me. I need a laptop, desktop, and a few servers for my needs. I have 8 systems right now, and I'm trying to get rid of all but 3 because the rest are relatively old (P4 2GHz, 1Gb RAM, 5 or 6 series graphics).
I vote AMD because of its high reliability and performance. I am using AMD for the last one year and I didn't get any complaints with it...
| psycosquirrel wrote: |
| Akira- You mention that you run 24 computers at home... That's a lot of systems. But the number of systems you run indicates in no way how much you know about computers. 24 systems is NOTHING, especially because, to have that many, most would be outdated. There is simply no need to accumulate computers like that for me. I need a laptop, desktop, and a few servers for my needs. I have 8 systems right now, and I'm trying to get rid of all but 3 because the rest are relatively old (P4 2GHz, 1Gb RAM, 5 or 6 series graphics). |
It is alot of systems. Half run newer technology, and the other half run older technology.
I do know ALOT about PC architecture and hardware. I build new systems daily for many purposes, and also work on them and maintain them at a company for a living (Head of IT Department). However, I thank for your understanding now that things have been explained a bit better.
And for all those interested. AMD is supposed to be releasing it Quad-Core Opteron this month. Just in case someone wants to know. I might pick one up for a new server myself.
I think both are good.....AMD is faster and is better in games...but i think Intel run's design programas better than AMD.....so i think deppends you want the Proccesor you will buy.....But i still choising INTEL processors...
Hi
Curently Intel core2 duo are better. But wait till september for Amd native quad core !!!
Curently Intel core2 duo are better. But wait till september for Amd native quad core !!!
core2duo is better, but amd price/prestation is better now... that was also Better with Core2duo, but AMD lowered prices,... and if you want a new processor, it is smarter to wait for penryn or phenom... then you will see whats better, and if amd really makes comeback... i hope so, becouse phenom is am2 compatible, and INTEL processors u also got to upgrade the mobo, even though the socket is the same...
I go for AMD. I have owned an Athlon XP and currently a Sempron 64-bit processor. First of all, I chose AMD for its low price (just within the budget), and recently it's running stable if you don't do overclocking.
AMD runs just as stable when overclocked.
AMD looks better in various parameters like low price, overclocking, true 64bit processor etc. but in performance Intel is better, I need a good processing power, I prefer Intel.
AMD,cheaper,stable,speed,my choice at home for playing game!
Intel,used in company,never mind how expensive!
Intel,used in company,never mind how expensive!
I'm using Intel Pentium 4 HT and I'm quite happy with it. Lot of people are saying that AMD is better and cheaper, (maybe it is) but I'm staying with Intel at the moment and the next thing I'm buying is Apple MacPro computer with Intel Xeon. This machine is quite expensive though, but I want to finish working on a PC for good.
See ya...
See ya...
I am a big AMD fan, but i must admit Intel have brought out some real nice processors. I can't wait to see what AMD and ATI can bring out.
AMD Is better que Price/Quality
But by pure performance, Intel Is better;
Todays CPU isn't all about Ghz
And in all other things than that Intel is winning
But by pure performance, Intel Is better;
Todays CPU isn't all about Ghz
And in all other things than that Intel is winning
AMD was doing better, but I think ever since intel decided to rid the Itanic ooops the Itanium, it seems to be doing better.
I would really bet on intel's stock as well.
I would really bet on intel's stock as well.
I've had an amd 64 x2 turion notebook and intel core 2 duo notebook. The AMD got much hotter than Intel computer did. this might have something to do with the manufacturers because AMD was gateway and Intel was HP but for me the AMD Gateway got much hotter.
The competition between these two companies.. is healthy.. that makes fast growth in technology..
But when comes to questioning which I like most.. I would go for AMD... as its value for money..
But when comes to questioning which I like most.. I would go for AMD... as its value for money..
I dont know anymore. If its about AMD vs Intel on the whole, i would say AMD, if AMD vs Intel at this moment, i would say Intel, just for the reason that the core2duo's are very good at the moment.
But.... i see many people saying that AMD is better for games etc. but that was with Athlon vs Pentium, the Core2Duo processors are better in gaming that athlon64's
But.... i see many people saying that AMD is better for games etc. but that was with Athlon vs Pentium, the Core2Duo processors are better in gaming that athlon64's
AMD's Phenoms are out and about.
Good stuff.
Good stuff.
| bicefalus wrote: |
| What company do you think makes better processors?
AMD or Intel? |
AMD of course! The Intel processors may be the fast, but if you compare the prices of intel with the speed of their processors AMD is much better! And Ati is cool too.
The problem with AMD is, they are having trouble with their finances right now. Intel has a big profit and has money for expensiver development than AMD. But AMD is comming back!
Well, it is quite ovios the Phenons can keep up with Intels 45nm Quads ...
...
This Poll needs reseting as the back a year and a half ago when this poll started, AMD were destroying intel's P4's.
Today however, AMD can honestly not get a chip out of Intel and it's Quad/Dual core line-ups.
Intel Nehalems are truly unbeatable.
...
This Poll needs reseting as the back a year and a half ago when this poll started, AMD were destroying intel's P4's.
Today however, AMD can honestly not get a chip out of Intel and it's Quad/Dual core line-ups.
Intel Nehalems are truly unbeatable.
Ive been an AMD kinda guy since the beginning. AMD is letting me down atm for intel seems to be on top of the mountain and amd is strutting behind. I always have love for amd but right now intel is the man
I'vs used both however not a recent AMD
The amd ithat i've used was from 2000
I currently have an Intel2coreduo of something duel-core 2.1Ghz
It's better than the 500Mhz AMD that i used in 2000
The amd ithat i've used was from 2000
I currently have an Intel2coreduo of something duel-core 2.1Ghz
It's better than the 500Mhz AMD that i used in 2000
At times AMD and at times (most of the time) it is Intel. Currently Intel is definitely is the winning team, but from a consumer's point of view, we need AMD to produce good, if not better, processors to compete with Intel so that we will have better processors at an affordable price. Otherwise, Intel will be taking their good sweet time to roll out their products and at a higher price.
From my experiences it seems that AMDs handle video cards and 3D generation better while Intel seems to run system based operations like writing to hard drives and scanning hard drives better. To be honest I haven't seen much of a difference, but I could really use a lot more experience using one and then the other. At this point, fast is fast it seems and for the common user they won't know the difference.
Today Intel Quad Core is the best processor, It's better than AMD x2
| Aiuspaktyn wrote: |
| Today Intel Quad Core is the best processor, It's better than AMD x2 |
Athlon X2 isn't the latest AMD.
it is stupid to say: Intel is better than AMD. Offcorse, if we watch the best procesor of Inetl and AMD, that Intel is better (for now).
But if you want to buy cheap dual core processor, you will buy AMD athlon X2 for example 4000+, because it is better than pentium, and cd2 is not so cheap.
AMD has lower performance because their processor have own cache memory per core, and c2d has 1 cache for all cores together. When u play new games that have support for 2 cores, that is not problem, but if you play old games, or do something else on your computer, AMD is not so good. For example AMD 4800+ is better in games than cd2 E4500, but only in the new games. In other things c2d is better. But c2d processor has very low temperature, and you can easy overclock them. In that way c2d is better choice.
But if you want to buy cheap dual core processor, you will buy AMD athlon X2 for example 4000+, because it is better than pentium, and cd2 is not so cheap.
AMD has lower performance because their processor have own cache memory per core, and c2d has 1 cache for all cores together. When u play new games that have support for 2 cores, that is not problem, but if you play old games, or do something else on your computer, AMD is not so good. For example AMD 4800+ is better in games than cd2 E4500, but only in the new games. In other things c2d is better. But c2d processor has very low temperature, and you can easy overclock them. In that way c2d is better choice.
| st-games wrote: |
| it is stupid to say: Intel is better than AMD. Offcorse, if we watch the best procesor of Inetl and AMD, that Intel is better (for now).
But if you want to buy cheap dual core processor, you will buy AMD athlon X2 for example 4000+, because it is better than pentium, and cd2 is not so cheap. AMD has lower performance because their processor have own cache memory per core, and c2d has 1 cache for all cores together. When u play new games that have support for 2 cores, that is not problem, but if you play old games, or do something else on your computer, AMD is not so good. For example AMD 4800+ is better in games than cd2 E4500, but only in the new games. In other things c2d is better. But c2d processor has very low temperature, and you can easy overclock them. In that way c2d is better choice. |
AMD Processors are extremely easy to overclock, and get pretty low temps. Mine is always low even when gaming. It all depends on air flow in your computer and the CPU fan/Heatsink you are using.
Me myself am a big fan of the Intel but do not include celerons in that because they are the pitts and not worth a mention. But im sure AMD are just as good. At the end of the day it's what you use your PC for, and what works and what your happy with. And as long as its running fine it's weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee all the way.
INTEL CORE 2DUO! and not lighted versions of CPUs
Inmy very uninformed opinion i would say AMD because i hear people talking about how good it is
In this day and age, Intel has outwon AMD.
It's processors are by far more stable than AMD's, the technology of Intel's chipsets is much more advanced than AMD's hence the performence is better.
It's processors are by far more stable than AMD's, the technology of Intel's chipsets is much more advanced than AMD's hence the performence is better.
i like the AMD processors. Have got a Phenom which works without problems and very stabile. the only bad thing is the overclocking potential.
greez Undeath
greez Undeath
| eXon3 wrote: |
| In this day and age, Intel has outwon AMD.
It's processors are by far more stable than AMD's, the technology of Intel's chipsets is much more advanced than AMD's hence the performence is better. |
This is the general opinion of the uninformed closed mind.
I have yet to see how Intel is "more stable" than AMD. But, meh... whatever.
I think at the moment, Intel is considered the winner. But things easily flop around...
AS of now Intel is leading. No discussion about that... this is bad though. Less competition means threat of monopoly. I hope AMD comes back in the way it was about 6-5 years ago.
it used to be amd for maby 3-4 years but intel has claimed their name back at the top
| moncader wrote: |
| It DOES depend on what you are doing with your computer. Intel WAXES AMD when doing multimedia apps, like 3d studio max, simply because of its hyperthreading technology and such. But for games, AMD is the way to go for now. I myself have an Intel because i use 3ds max and stuff... |
I don't know if I can agree with you on this or not. I'm using AMD and running C4D. I did run 3DS, but found I liked C4D better. I have no issues whatsoever.
yes i use amd but i find my computer hotter in comparison with those using intel.
i love amd because it forces intel to cut down it's price. whats more, amd uses 64 bit tec in even cheaper processors. wow, btw, do you use 64bit vista? i want to have a try but am afraid it will not support common drivers and programmes and games.
i love amd because it forces intel to cut down it's price. whats more, amd uses 64 bit tec in even cheaper processors. wow, btw, do you use 64bit vista? i want to have a try but am afraid it will not support common drivers and programmes and games.
Intel are good, but its to expensive.
I have a AMD 6400+ and Im happy.
I have a AMD 6400+ and Im happy.
Intel is better it has lower temps better cooling lower noise less power compsumtion faster cycles more overclockable and cheaper. Intel E2180 can be OC'D to 3.0Ghz.
Currently, AMD has more advantage points over Intel CPU's... but I dont think that this could keep for a couple of years.
Its weird so many people are saying AMD. Intel is the bigger company, and its technology is (from what i read) more sophisticated. HOWEVER, that being said, i thought Vista was RUBBISH, until i tried it out on an AMX X2 processor, and it was FAST!!! With only 1GB RAM! Which surprised me to be honest!! On paper Intel? But from experience, AMD beats Intel everytime.
Oh and the comparison which goes for gaming AMD is better...well i kinda agree, my gaming desktop is AMD and i dont reckon an Intel could handle half the stuff i do on it.
Oh and the comparison which goes for gaming AMD is better...well i kinda agree, my gaming desktop is AMD and i dont reckon an Intel could handle half the stuff i do on it.
You haven't seen a system with a decent Intel processor then.
My system has an e6750 with 2Gb of RAM and an 8800GT. It will run ANY game full-spec at 1080p with no lag. Even Crysis.
Processing, compiling, multitasking, and booting all work perfectly and faster than any other system I've played with.
Both AMD and Intel work great. It is all a matter of preference, and which manufacturer is better for the money when you purchase your processor.
That being said, both companies are nearly equal right now. So go with whatever you can find on sale, or for cheaper! They will both get the job done well.
-Dave
(3rd year Computer Engineer <- I know my stuff)
My system has an e6750 with 2Gb of RAM and an 8800GT. It will run ANY game full-spec at 1080p with no lag. Even Crysis.
Processing, compiling, multitasking, and booting all work perfectly and faster than any other system I've played with.
Both AMD and Intel work great. It is all a matter of preference, and which manufacturer is better for the money when you purchase your processor.
That being said, both companies are nearly equal right now. So go with whatever you can find on sale, or for cheaper! They will both get the job done well.
-Dave
(3rd year Computer Engineer <- I know my stuff)
Intel is a better option. Also widely accepted.
AMD is a challenge as motherboard and OS capabilities are not harnessing its processing power.
AMD is a challenge as motherboard and OS capabilities are not harnessing its processing power.
Definitely without a shadow of a doubt, Intel beats AMD. Not sure why, but AMD is fumbling a lot recently... maybe they're putting all their effort into ATIs GPU--which would account for ATIs success over nVidia this generation.
| QrafTee wrote: |
| Definitely without a shadow of a doubt, Intel beats AMD. Not sure why, but AMD is fumbling a lot recently... maybe they're putting all their effort into ATIs GPU--which would account for ATIs success over nVidia this generation. |
Not sure if this really means something... nVidia is doing well too.
This is just too general, one generation amd might beat intel, the other intel will beat amd. There is no definitive answer.
when i was building my pc i decided to go with amd for a few simple reasons where for the same amount of money. it also performs awesome and very relyable unlike the intels i have had in the past
With your question, you are trying to compare 2 companies, and not 2 products. If you say, "Intel is better", then if I offer you a Celeron D and a Phenom 9950 Black Edition, would you go for Intel?
Also there other questions involved. If you use the right motherboard with the right chipset, the performance can totally change.
Both companies make excelent products, and things like "X is better than Y" usually comes from personal feelings. I am a fan of AMD, cause Intel usually charges too much for the performance they offer.
Curiosity: Did you guys know that the "K" from the name of the AMD's processor's architecture, k6, k7, k8 and k10, comes from Kriptonite (the only thing that can defeat Superman)?
Also there other questions involved. If you use the right motherboard with the right chipset, the performance can totally change.
Both companies make excelent products, and things like "X is better than Y" usually comes from personal feelings. I am a fan of AMD, cause Intel usually charges too much for the performance they offer.
Curiosity: Did you guys know that the "K" from the name of the AMD's processor's architecture, k6, k7, k8 and k10, comes from Kriptonite (the only thing that can defeat Superman)?
I like Intels present speed scaling, but I hate their stock HSF,,,Its realy sucky,,,I like the amd HSF anyway
I have used both makes of processor and I have never really noticed much difference.
AMD's processors are cheaper than Intel's, but Intel's are faster, in my opinion.
Yes, but Intel's are also easy to overclock... [/quote]
| Quote: |
| Amd's are easy to overclock |
Yes, but Intel's are also easy to overclock... [/quote]
Intel for me.
Some people say that AMD beats Intel... in what way? co'z their products are way cheaper?
Some people say that AMD beats Intel... in what way? co'z their products are way cheaper?
Intel gives good performance than oyher products
So it is good to use Intel as it is faster than other
but every one has their own choice of using and working on it...
So it is good to use Intel as it is faster than other
but every one has their own choice of using and working on it...
| wahoyaho wrote: |
| This is just too general, one generation amd might beat intel, the other intel will beat amd. There is no definitive answer. |
^ I agree with this guy. They both constantly come out with products that match or exceed the performance of others, and both come out with ones cheaper/more power conservative/whatever than the other.
Intel maybe better and faster than intel, but I still prefer amd because it price/perfomance ratio is great compared to Intel processor.
Intel by far is the larger company as such they are able to send much more money on R&D so they in the long run are going to be on top.
i use Intel and i think not bad. i vote Intel
i vote Intel They outdo each other with every new release, intel usual has a sightly better clock speed but this is made up by AMD in other ways so definately go AMD as it's cheaper, and has always been completely reliable for me.
Intel is good in all probability due its good adaptability to various software's and yes its quite reliable also!!!!
Intel is power ...
Very curbing subject. I like AMD, because it's incredibly good speed for a price less than half that of a comparable Intel. But a comparable intel Does perform better. All in all, I would prefer Intel ONLY if I had the money to waste. Because as it seems, with the rate technlology is advancing, it's much more plausible for me to purchase a new top AMD system, and have enough money to buy another new top AMD system 2-4 years down the road when the technology is 10 times faster and more advanced. But then again for me, Intel has seemed to out live AMD longer, and work slightly better over years of use.
It's a very trying subject indeed.
Perhapps when I have the money I'll get Both an AMD and an Intel system and see which one fails on me frist, then take into account the cost vs time vs speed vs reliabilty has on Me
WOW thats a mouth full!
It's a very trying subject indeed.
Perhapps when I have the money I'll get Both an AMD and an Intel system and see which one fails on me frist, then take into account the cost vs time vs speed vs reliabilty has on Me
WOW thats a mouth full!
| Hogwarts wrote: | ||
^ I agree with this guy. They both constantly come out with products that match or exceed the performance of others, and both come out with ones cheaper/more power conservative/whatever than the other. |
And its kinda annoying lol. But for photoshop and programming with 30+ windows running, amd when in windows, but in linux it doesn't matter they both never failed for me
AMD and ATI 4ever
I dont know
I bet Intel is better than AMD in these days.In the past AMD was better. I'm waiting for new processor from AMD to compete with Intel. At the moment i5 and i7 just rocks. I'm happy to own one of the i7 .
For me i reckon that Intel is better. They can make the fastest commercially available cpu and they can also make a cpu faster then amd flag ship for less money. Though amd makes very good cheap cpu's.
AMD Pwns period, Intel's are good for slow computers lol.
Intel by FAR has the better processors. However, they are also much more expensive. I personally rather getting the top AMD every time I need to upgrade. It will never be the fastest or the most future proof as compared to Intel, but MUCH cheaper, and will work just as fast as I desire until my next upgrade.
At the rate things are advancing, it seems like a better deal to top off a new system with the highest end Phenom CPU every other year, than top off with an intel that will be the fastest for about 4 years. If you do the math, Intel would be more expensive.
While I do not have much money, I'm stickin with AMD.
Once I'm rich and cash is Not an issue, I am going with Intel for sure!
At the rate things are advancing, it seems like a better deal to top off a new system with the highest end Phenom CPU every other year, than top off with an intel that will be the fastest for about 4 years. If you do the math, Intel would be more expensive.
While I do not have much money, I'm stickin with AMD.
Once I'm rich and cash is Not an issue, I am going with Intel for sure!
Related topics
 |