Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: AMD Vs. Intel

  1. #1

    Default AMD Vs. Intel

    Not opinion but facts.

    Which is better?

    Would it really matter for what type of system you are building? Office, gaming, Media editing?



    I do have to ask.

    Please no Bla bla bla is better because it is faster Blabla bla with out proof.

  2. #2

    Default

    If I had to choose: AMD all the way. This is because if you take a product with the same specs, Intel is always more expensive.

    If you want proof:
    AMD vs. Intel 2 x 3GHz processor

    This is not the only example, but these one had equal specs so I used them. If you want more examples, just look around the internet.

    EDIT: I'm sorry, they don't have equal specs, I just saw that the Intel has more cache memory. Also: If you look at the site, the cheapest Intel is more expensive then the most expensive AMD.

  3. #3

    Default

    If you're gaming I'd say AMD over intel, intel are nowhere near as scalable in overclock conditions. also AMD if you're on a budget, as Diapersrulez said.

    The only thing you will have to take into account is that AMD's do require more/ more powerful ventilation & cooing as they tend to run hotter than intel chips under load. in my experience by upto 7 degrees C of difference

  4. #4

    Default

    AMD
    you can get quallity just as good as intel for a much lower price

  5. #5

    Default

    AMD if you're looking for the best value (bang for your buck).

    But intel's CPU's are statistically more powerful in every single application.

    You can't just compare 2 CPUs that happen to have the same clock speed. I can assure you there is a big difference between a "Intel Pentium D" and an "AMD Phenom II X2" both clocked at 3 GHz. The Phenom is worlds above the Pentium D.

    Consider this:
    Intel's "Core i5 750" (2.66 GHz quad core) is more powerful, more energy efficient, and runs cooler than AMD's "Phenom II X4 965" (3.4GHz quad core) for about the same price (about $15 difference between the 2).

    Also note that the "Phenom II X4 965" is AMD's most powerful desktop processor. Intel's "Core i5 750" is the top of Intels mid-range desktop CPUs.

    Short answer is:
    Intel is better in terms of power and efficiency.
    AMD is the better value since most of Intel's CPUs are overkill for even a serious gamer's needs.



    Quote Originally Posted by diapersrulez View Post
    If I had to choose: AMD all the way. This is because if you take a product with the same specs, Intel is always more expensive.

    If you want proof:
    AMD vs. Intel 2 x 3GHz processor

    This is not the only example, but these one had equal specs so I used them. If you want more examples, just look around the internet.

    EDIT: I'm sorry, they don't have equal specs, I just saw that the Intel has more cache memory. Also: If you look at the site, the cheapest Intel is more expensive then the most expensive AMD.
    Not just the cache is different. The Core2Duo is not Intel's most current line of CPUs unlike the Athlon II X2 you're comparing it to.
    Basically what I'm getting at, is AMD's most current line of CPU's is about as powerful as Intel's OLD line of CPUs.

    Edit:
    If you want a more accurate comparison, Intel's Core i3 and i5 series processors are their latest and are priced almost the same as AMD's current line up but offer better overall performance.

    Bottom line:
    Intel's top of the line processors are more expensive but are significantly more powerful. They are overkill in most applications. When paired up against AMDs procs in real world scenarios, they perform about the same because there aren't many tasks out there that demand the performance the Intel provides which makes AMD the obvious choice for budget minded consumers.

    For gaming:
    Go with AMD since there are very few games that even will make use of more than 2 processing threads. And games rely more on the graphics hardware than the CPU anyway.

    For multimedia tasks (encoding, editing, etc.):
    Go with Intel since most media encoding applications will make use of the full potential of the CPU.
    Last edited by Excalibur; 09-Apr-2010 at 04:06.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by xcliber View Post
    For gaming:
    Go with AMD since there are very few games that even will make use of more than 2 processing threads. And games rely more on the graphics hardware than the CPU anyway.

    For multimedia tasks (encoding, editing, etc.):
    Go with Intel since most media encoding applications will make use of the full potential of the CPU.
    I basically agree with this, but I have to say you're likely not going to go wrong either way unless you need really hefty performance (raytracing, video encoding, computational chemistry, whatever). I went with an Intel Q6600 Core 2 Quad 2.4 Ghz, 2 years ago and ended up spending more on my power supply and graphics card than the processor. So I mean, if you find a good deal on an intel motherboard or whatever, there's no reason not to go that way.

  7. #7
    Butterfly Mage

    Default

    I tend to go with AMD because they never -- and I mean never -- stick the customer with a crappy video processor.

    Intel laptops almost universally come with the utterly crippled Intel Graphics Media Accelerator. Even the mightiest GMA is less powerful than even a basic chipset from nVidia or ATI.

    I also like the power management features of the AMD Turion Neo. My little laptop can use as little as 11 watts. That means I can recharge it in my car!

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Butterfly Mage View Post
    I tend to go with AMD because they never -- and I mean never -- stick the customer with a crappy video processor.

    Intel laptops almost universally come with the utterly crippled Intel Graphics Media Accelerator. Even the mightiest GMA is less powerful than even a basic chipset from nVidia or ATI.

    I also like the power management features of the AMD Turion Neo. My little laptop can use as little as 11 watts. That means I can recharge it in my car!
    What are you talking about? Just because a laptop uses the Intel chipset doesn't mean it has to have the Intel integrated graphics card. Most Core2Duo laptops use Nvidia graphics.

    AMD laptops, however, almost always use ATI graphics chipsets. The only way to get an Nvidia video chip in a laptop is with an Intel processor.

  9. #9
    Butterfly Mage

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by xcliber View Post
    What are you talking about? Just because a laptop uses the Intel chipset doesn't mean it has to have the Intel integrated graphics card. Most Core2Duo laptops use Nvidia graphics.

    AMD laptops, however, almost always use ATI graphics chipsets. The only way to get an Nvidia video chip in a laptop is with an Intel processor.
    Well... If you go to HP or Dell, you have to pay about $200 extra to get away from the dreaded GMA chipset.

    I have one AMD computer with nVidia and one with ATI. The cheaper one had the ATI (which also draws a whopping 11 watts)

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Butterfly Mage View Post
    Well... If you go to HP or Dell, you have to pay about $200 extra to get away from the dreaded GMA chipset.

    I have one AMD computer with nVidia and one with ATI. The cheaper one had the ATI (which also draws a whopping 11 watts)
    AMD and ATI are both the same company. They work best together. It's called the Dragon Platform if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, yes, a dedicated graphics chip like Nvidia or ATI is always going to be more expensive than Intel's integrated graphics. It's like buying a desktop with integrated graphics as compared to one that has a powerful dedicated video card. That extra $200 is the price you pay for a decent video card in desktop PCs too.

Similar Threads

  1. MW2: Intel
    By Zephy in forum Computers & Gaming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 21-Jan-2010, 23:29
  2. AMD vs Intel
    By codered in forum Computers & Gaming
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 27-Feb-2009, 01:24

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.