AMD or Intel, which are you using? and why?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's a recent CPU shootout that seems to confirm that Intel's current crop of CPUs has an upper hand on AMD:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/16/cpu_charts_2007/

However, you need to ask yourself how you'll be using the machine. While the difference may be meaningful to some hardcore gamers and people who like to brag that their CPU scored xxxx points on some testing utility, to most people doing simple web browsing, checking email, working with Office applications it may not matter much.

As for me, I am using an old Pentium4 2.6GHz with 400Mhz FSB in a 4-year-old Dell notebook. Once in a while I get a craving for an upgrade, but then I can't really justify it as my current PC works quite alright. The only thing I wish I could do is upgrade the video card, alas it's an integrated one, so no luck there.

I don't have a brand preference when it comes to CPUs - I will pick the one that offers better performance for the money.
 
QP, that's an interesting article. I found this intriguing "Windows Vista also doesn't make the whole thing easier, as it was not designed for more than four cores."

If true, Microsoft didn't quite think of the future with dual-quad core CAD/CAM workstations. Hopefully SP1 will address this shortcoming.
 
I have had good luck with AMD and currently am running an AMD 4200 dual core 64.

I the run 64 bit version Ubuntu Linux most of the time and have my system setup so I can run Windows XP or Linux at boot/reboot.

Some of the new AMD processors are low wattage which = less heat and power consumption.

Both AMD and Intel are coming out with new processors.

If you are a hard core gamer you will want the fastest processor and video cards that money can buy.

But for most of us either AMD or Intel will do just fine.
 
I have 3 laptops and 2 desktops with Amd cpus. All desktop usage.

First one was bought in 99/2000 and was the famous 1 gig Thunderbird on a Gigabyte board. This was the fastest in its day. This machine is still running today with only a ram upgrade. It is slower than my newer 3400 but not a heckofalot.

Why did I buy Amd? Better prices.
 
I bought an Intel processor earlier this year, I think the processors are a little better. The price is a little better for the AMD. I'm a little biased, though, as I used to work at one of the Intel fabs (I work for an equipment vendor). Intel still has most of their production here, while AMD has most of it overseas.
 
I used to use AMD cpus, but using Intel now. Just a preference with no reason why. Just go with what you feel best that will work and I don't think you'll go wrong with either one you choose. Try to get as much memory as you can afford and a fast SATA hard drive.
 
Motorola PowerPC's, here.
smile.gif
 
Intel. Why; it came in the laptop I was given by my company.

I could honestly care less which is in my computer.

Next computer I buy will be Apple, so whatever comes in it at the time I buy one.
 
Started with a Cyrix 486 DX-4 100.

Been with Intel ever since.

Reliable and by staying a couple years "behind the CPU curve" kept the costs down.

Better minds than mine have written about the benefits of Intel vice AMD.

Disregarded the minds exhorting AMD benefits.

Looking forward to CPUs utilizing mouse brain tissue living within a nutrient vat within the computer case. When that technology comes around will name my computer at that time.
 
I have used both, and they are both great. In the past years, AMD was always far superior to Intel in terms of performance and gaming. Currently, from my experience, Intel Pentium processors have improved and appear to be equal to AMD in the same aspects. This is based on the hundreds of solo and duo core Intel/AMD processors that I have serviced. Celeron processors are good, but don't compare to the higher performance of AMD/Pentium processors.

I'm currently using an Intel Centrino 1.6 ghz processor, and my wife's laptop has an AMD Turion 64 x2. No real reason for the choices, they just happened to be the available options for the laptops we wanted.
 
Quote:


Disregarded the minds exhorting AMD benefits.




This does not allow for a open minded or well informed decision.

I'm using an AMD in the desktop and an Intel in the laptop; but when I build a new machine I use whatever has the best price-performance ratio at the time.

Hopefully I'll have something dual-core sitting in my desktop case next year.
coffeetime.gif
 
The speed of AMD and Intel processors are more than enough for everyday usage. You can probably see a difference in micron seconds and both will slow down when there is traffic on the server.

I'd rather spend extra on a good video card with a lower end AMD if I was price conscience. Buying extra for luxury rather for paying for bragging rights on speed.
 
Coin toss here. Built various systems with both and don't have any complaints.

With the price war going on, either would build an excellent system if budget is an issue. Just make sure your motherboard supports future upgrades.

If money is no object, then my vote if for Intel. You just can't beat the performance of their top of the line core2duos.
 
I've been using Intel save for my old HP Pavilion laptop. Intel has really run away with the market as of late.

I wish AMD would truly catch up. The triple-core thing is not what the doctor ordered.
 
AMD and Intel are both good companies with good products.

I generally stick with AMD because keeping the 2nd place company strong benefits us all by creating meaningful competition for #1. I would buy Intel if there were compelling reason, but since they both make CPUs that more than meet my needs and desires for reasonable prices, I expect I will stick with AMD.

I also like that AMD makes over clocking easier, even though I don't normally overclock.

1. Old unused desktop has an AMD XP from about 4 or 5 years ago. About 1.5Ghz IIRC.

2. Sony Vaio laptop[about 7 years old has been upgraded to an AMD XP-M running at about 1.4 Ghz from the original AMD Duran at 0.9 Ghz.

3. HP Pavilion laptop has an AMD Athlon 64x2, Don't know the speed.

4. Homebuilt desktop has and AMD Athlon 64x1 running at 2.25 Ghz which will soon be replaced by an AMD A64 X2 4850E at 2.5G in a new motherboard. I'm upgrading because the old motherboard is getting flaky, got the 4850E because it has reasonable speed and only uses 45 Watts of power.
 
Originally Posted By: XS650
AMD and Intel are both good companies with good products.

I generally stick with AMD because keeping the 2nd place company strong benefits us all by creating meaningful competition for #1. I would buy Intel if there were compelling reason, but since they both make CPUs that more than meet my needs and desires for reasonable prices, I expect I will stick with AMD.

I also like that AMD makes over clocking easier, even though I don't normally overclock.

1. Old unused desktop has an AMD XP from about 4 or 5 years ago. About 1.5Ghz IIRC.

2. Sony Vaio laptop[about 7 years old has been upgraded to an AMD XP-M running at about 1.4 Ghz from the original AMD Duran at 0.9 Ghz.

3. HP Pavilion laptop has an AMD Athlon 64x2, Don't know the speed.

4. Homebuilt desktop has and AMD Athlon 64x1 running at 2.25 Ghz which will soon be replaced by an AMD A64 X2 4850E at 2.5G in a new motherboard. I'm upgrading because the old motherboard is getting flaky, got the 4850E because it has reasonable speed and only uses 45 Watts of power.



How does AMD make overclocking easier? I've been overclocking since the mid 90's and AMD has never made it "easier". There were things like the pencil mod that allowed you to unlock the multi, but that doesn't make it "easier", it simply gives you another option.......

Dual Celeron 400's OC'd to 480Mhz on a BP6 was a blast.......
 
Originally Posted By: ConfederateTyrant
I have used both, and they are both great. In the past years, AMD was always far superior to Intel in terms of performance and gaming. Currently, from my experience, Intel Pentium processors have improved and appear to be equal to AMD in the same aspects. This is based on the hundreds of solo and duo core Intel/AMD processors that I have serviced. Celeron processors are good, but don't compare to the higher performance of AMD/Pentium processors.

I'm currently using an Intel Centrino 1.6 ghz processor, and my wife's laptop has an AMD Turion 64 x2. No real reason for the choices, they just happened to be the available options for the laptops we wanted.


1. AMD CPU's have never been "far superior". In the Pentium 4 days, the Athlon was, Mhz for Mhz, substantially faster than the P4. But the P4 scaled a LOT better. This was due to the 28-stage pipe used on the P4, vs the 8-stage pipe used on the Athlon. It allowed the P4 to clock much higher, but performance per clock cycle was affected. These CPU's were NEVER comparable on a clock-per-clock basis, and Intel scaled the P4 at an incredible rate, which is why AMD adopted the goofy "PR" rating for their CPU's. This was a technique originally employed by Cyrix back in the 486 and 586 (Pentium for the Intel boys) days to give an "indication of performance" as to what they FELT their CPU performed like in comparison to it's competitor.

Intel's response to AMD was to adopt an even goofier naming scheme to prove a point. AMD's PR ratings were based on what they felt was a comparative performance level in the P4. Intel's subsequent numbering scheme seemed to have no basis in ANYTHING other than being in sequence. And that's why we now have Intel processor numbers.

The P3 and Athlon were a toss-up performance-wise. Remember, AMD's CPU's were, historically, based on Intel's CPU's. The Athlon and P3 had a LOT in common. Socket 370 vs Socket "A", Slot 1 vs Slot "A"....

AMD's 760 chipset for the Slot A Athlon was a GREAT chipset.... and the last chipset they made until VERY recently after their acquisition of ATI.

And this brings me to my 2nd point:

2. Chipsets. Intel has had this advantage since AMD abandoned in-house chipset production with the 760. ALI, VIA, SiS...etc. [censored]. This has been AMD's biggest detriment, as Intel has continued to provide VERY GOOD in-house chipsets to go with their CPU's. This is why Intel CPU's are the preferred choice for business systems, as the Intel CPU's with Intel chipset motherboards are bulletproof. And Intel even makes their own motherboards!

3. Intel is no where near "equal" to AMD right now. They are kicking AMD's teeth in. AMD is milking an architecture that was cutting edge when the P4 came out.... And as I said, at that time, was clock-for-clock faster, but was never as scalable.

And now we have the Core-series CPU's. The reinvention of the P3, the P3 on steroids. It is scalable, and FAST. VERY fast. Did you know AMD's fastest quad core is slower than Intel's slowest Quad-core? That's not EQUAL, that's PATHETIC!!!

AMD needs to get their butts in gear and develop a new architecture, because Intel just debuted their latest and it's even faster........

The gap is widening and AMD needs to do something. NOW!


Oh, and to answer the original question, I've been using Intel since 1988. I have never had a GOOD reason to switch.

When I build a business workstation, I use Intel. They just work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Over the years I have owned both. My preference has almost always been for AMD! I have the best luck with durability and performance from them. Sure their each one will edge out the other from time to time but over all AMD has always given me the best high end gameing ability over all. The only times I buy Intell is when a deal that is just too good for me to pass up comes along other wise I always opt for AMD. My new desk top is Intell but my old desk top from 2001 is AMD and my new laptop is AMD. Oh and if you like to build/configure your own pc your money usualy goes further with AMD in terms of bang for the buck!

Like the poster before me said AMD is getting their teeth kicked in right now but the performance gap is reflected in the price yo pay for componets as well! AMD's latest chiip set's have been rock solid the 780 and 790 are tight! I have a slot a athalon with the 760 chipset and it is still going strong!

The bad news is that it will not be the next the Kuma chip that catchs AMD up it will follow that one! I agree that if I where to build a server for business I would go with intel as a completly intergrated solution. I do not though I just build my own systems so I am more then happy to stick with AMD any chance I get!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top