AMD vs Intel

[codered]

*IMPORTANT READ FIRST*



I want to see people preferences on your favorite CPU manufacturer (If you have one), but i don't want to see stupid answers like "Amd's better because its more reliable" or "Intels better because its faster" without any true stories or resources to back it up. Also i don't want to see this turn into a big fanboy argument over which one is better ( i just want to see which manufacturer people prefer).

:smile1:

 

[Lil Snap]

The last thing I read that I would consider unbiased was that the Intel quad cores were faster processors than the Phenoms, but not by a lot, and that was after Intel went to the 45nm architecture. Their thoughts were that when AMD goes to the smaller architecture, it will be producing the superior processors. That said, I've got a Phenom (like 1.8 Ghz on each core, the slowest one) and I am more than happy with it. The 4 gig of RAM and the 650 gig HDD don't hurt either.

 

[codered]

Yeah they are faster (Intel) but the advantage about Amd is the cheaper prices for what you get. besides like you just proved most the the top end processors are overkill on the power today...

 

[Wzrd]

Yeah they are faster (Intel) but the advantage about Amd is the cheaper prices for what you get. besides like you just proved most the the top end processors are overkill on the power today...

Not if you play games. Anyways I like Intel over AMD and I have computers with both.

 

[kevindhca]

I have three computers with AMD CPU's.
When I got my new Athlon X2 2.6Ghz, the computer tech at the store was very knowlegable, and said, the differences are very small. And no that wasn't Best Buy. it was a system builders computer store.
AMD's supposedly generate more heat, but if you have a good cooler it shouldn't be a problem.
Right now the cpu temp is 33C and the MB is 29C with the cpu fan turning at 2947rpm and the chassis fan turning 1394 rpm.
Asus has the coolest monitoring utilities.
Hmmm, I'm not sure what the printer has in it, but now I am going to find out.
I got the AMD for the price vs performance factor, and I always root for the underdog, LOL.
I also trust IBM. I have an IBM Aptiva that I use for a music server, and it has an AMD-K6-333Mhz CPU.
That thing is rock solid, it's a little slow sometimes, but it never crashes.
When I got it, it was running fine, but I thought I'd clean it out anyway.
There was so much dust in there you couldn't even see the components on the motherboard, and the cpu heatsink fins were totally filled in, there was zero air flow though there and it still wasn't overheating.

 

[frost]

i use both, depends on what comp im building, but intel performs better for the os but i find amd is good for dos

 

[dinorider]

To be honest, I don't really know much about the current AMDs or Intels. Seeign as I've only bought Macs since they switched from PowerPCs I'm pretty much stuck with Intel anyway. So far they've worked out great for me, but then again, what do I have to compare them to?

From my PC days I remember favoring AMDs, but only because they were kind of the underdogs. I never really had anything to back it up with. I don't know, maybe I felt sorry for the older ones that were prone to overheating and starting fires :tongueout:

 

[kapi]

Stupid topic. Looking at Phenom X2 and Core2Quad Processors they are quite equal atm.
But this is subject to change. When Core2 came out there was nothing equal AMD could offer while they outperformed Intel the generation before...

tl;dr
Read recent benchmarks, reviews and tech news as you plan to upgrade.

 

[Hex]

[font="Calibri,Arial"]Looking back at my computers, I've never had a AMD. 3 x Pentium II, 2 x Pentium 4, 1 x Pentium M, 2 x Core 2 Duo. So I'm not qualified to comment on AMD versus Intel. The one thing is AFAIK, AMD markets itself as more affordable.[/font]

 

[Fire2box]

I like AMD better as a company but I will buy whatever one is the best that's in my price range.

 

[goodnites2002]

I was an AMD guy for a long time, the most recent systems I have been building though are on Intel's Core 2 architecture. Specifically my computer is a Core 2 Quad Q6600. I've had it for about 18 months now, and it's still a top end processor. 18 months ago AMD had nothing that would match it.

My specific reason I purchased an Intel processor and rig this time around is the bang for the buck I was able to get.

AMD has been struggling to compete against the Core 2 architecture since it's introduction. the Phenom II is a good competitor, however it's taken AMD quite some time and delays to finally produce the chip.

 

[Gil]

PowerPC FTW!

 

[kitty0230]

AMD AMD AMD. im an amd fanboy.

 

[mm3]

Stupid topic. Looking at Phenom X2 and Core2Quad Processors they are quite equal atm.

That just isn't true. The main difference of non-QuickPath (ie, i7) Intel CPUs and AMDs; is the simple bus speed. For example, This mid-high grade server-quality (2006?) AMD motherboard with a 1.6GHz Sempron has a 1600MHz Bus Speed; Whilst the same year/spec'd Intel board with a 3GHz Pentium 4 with HyperThreading has only a 800MHz Bus Speed. Bus Speed is how fast your CPU interacts with your RAM; faster bus speeds has it's advantages. Intel ditched it's slow Front Side Bus for QuickPath nowadays with Core i7. Now everything is on-chip, for blazing speeds.

Even with a X4 Phenom and a Core 2 Quad; there's plenty of differences that you'd see in benchmarking and gaming. The Phenom would probably perform just *slightly* more than the C2Q in, say, Call of Duty 4 thanks to it's fast bus speed; dispite it's relatively low clock speed compared to supposed-5GHz-capable-on-air C2Q (running 2GHz vs 2.66GHz for example).

There's ups and downs for both Intel-based CPUs and AMD-based ones. The way I look at things; is that not everything is about clock speed. Always weigh in L2 (and L3) cache, bus speed, overclocking ability, core stepping, architecture, family... the list goes on.

Loyalty is stupid. Whatever is good at the time is what's good at the time. Right now Core i7 is just taking off; even I wouldn't go out getting one yet, at least until the 2nd or 3rd revision (remember the pre-Core 2 craze with Core?).

 

[Rene]

i think it depends on what you need. the whole amd ati partnership was because amd and ati are more focused on media. alot of ati cards are bashed on for not being as powerful as nvidia cards, but bench mark em in a media software suite test and u will see. same with amd procsessors, intel is the gaming powerhouse, but put it in an intense media test, and you will see that it is able to process media, like audio and visuals alot faster!

 

[kapi]

Phenom2 has a better architecture, yes, thats why Core2 processors got such a huge cache. Maybe there are load situations where it pays off, but for the normal desktop users and most benchmarks i've seen they're just about equal.

 

[ajsco]

Intel currently have the best high end processors but for normal people who don't need ultra super fast for computers for gaming (that's what PS3's are for,right?) AMD everytime. I am lucky enough to have tested this - we have 3 laptops and a computer in our house. My laptop has AMD 2.0ghz X2 and my mum has an Intel 2.0 ghz both have 2 gb of ram running at 800mhz, mine has a 320gb hdd and the other has a 100gb hdd both run at 5400rpm. So a fair test, on start up the Intel is faster by 9s, but the AMD is far more capable of running multiple programs without juddering of programs not responding. The theory is this - the Intel has one big cache (4MB L2), but the AMD has two caches (2x1MB L2) one for each core. The big cache or the Intel helps it through the number crunching of start up, but once it's running the cache for each processor comes into play.

 

[SomebodyE]

I like AMD just because they're the little guy, but Intel has taken a clear lead performance wise since the Core 2 chips came out. The Core 2's and Core i7's are the most efficient processors around and the Core 2's were incredible overclockers. I've taken my Q6600 (2.4 GHz Quad) up to 3.8 GHz stable, although I normally run around 3.0 GHz to keep the heat output manageable. I haven't had a chance to play with an i7 chip yet.

AMD makes great low cost and energy efficient products and now that they own ATI they have a great graphics card lineup. After 3DFX went under I tried an Nvidia card (Ti 4xxx, I forget the exact model) and wasn't particularly happy with it. For my next upgrade I went with an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro and have been an ATI fanboy ever since.

For most users an AMD Athlon X2 or Phenom chip has plenty of power and is a great value. For top end machines you should go with Intel. In terms of stability and motherboard chipset features I think they're pretty even.

 

[adaffme149]

Bottomline, they're both the same quality to me.
AMD - More reasonably priced, and seemingly more marketed at custom system builders, in my opinion.
Intel - Works just as good as AMD, but with a "name recognition" and "assurance" factor, that you sure pay for. I don't know how exactly to explain the "assurance factor", but I just kind of think of Intel as a more comforting thought in a computer, as opposed to an AMD, at least when buying a pre-built, even though I prefer AMD. I used to prefer Intel, and when getting an AMD for the first time (when building a computer, on a very low budget, and seeing AMD was cheaper for the power you can get, and getting an Athlon, 1.0 ghz) after also owning an Intel at the same time (Pentium 3, 1.0 ghz also), I saw that AMD was just as reliable, at a lower price, and have used AMD ever since, just because of that price factor. I also think (not verified yet, but THINK), that AMD's run cooler.

Right now, I'm using a Phenom 9600 (Quad-core 2.3 ghz, with the patch applied for the bug in them.) I got it for ~100 dollars, and am thoroughly satisfied with its' performance. I built my whole computer based on AMD parts, I guess. (4 GB Corsair RAM, 2.3 gHz Quad-core Phenom 9600, ECS Motherboard, Radeon HD 3870 512 MB GDDR4, 680 Watt PSU, and only for about 425 dollars, with (really cheap) case, shipping and all.)

 

[Mink]

Intel > AMD
nVidia > ATI

Why? Fanboyism.