AMD or Intel

[andrew_furshizzle]

Which do you prefer?

[1c3d0g]

Right now AMD, but things could change quickly if Yonah comes to the desktop... *hint* Intel *hint*... ;)

[Rtstrider]

I've always been an intel guy...Hell even from the pentium 1 days...Of course if you're strictly a gamer then yes AMD is the better bet...But for my case I like to have pure power and the ability to rip and backup cd's and dvd's more efficently....Plus I do a ton of multitasking....I do also game but I figured it wouldn't hurt to have the extra power....But I'm waiting a good 3-6 years before upgrading...Waiting for everything to become more than rock solid with 64 bit and multiple cores....Basically I'm waiting to see whats after Longhorn.......

[soulsaver_8229]

9:1 amd wins, kkthx pack it up boys! ;)

























long thread ahead!

soulsaver_8229

[DamienThorn]

The only time that I purchase OEM computers is when I'm buying for business, and so I choose Intel everytime. They just feel smoother, and there is no way that I'm going to be able to budget some X2's for general desktop use (hell, I feel dirty getting someone that's just using word processing and email the 2.8+Ghz machine that they "need" because everyone else has one).

[James54321]

First of all, this opinion excludes business models, which account for a big part of Intel's advantage. That said I have no choice but to vote AMD. Even though I love my Northwood and Coppermine, the Prescott really did a lot to hurt Intel. It seems that while AMD has had a clear vision of what they want their CPU's to do, Intel has been (as of late) floundering and instead of innovating, they've been focusing on competition... more specifically 1-upping AMD with the "we can do that too" mentality.

With this focus on competition, Intel has lost a crucial area in terms of value as they add more performance features to their set, such as DDR2, which ironically doesn't do much. For my clients and friends that only need a single system, building them an AMD-based computer is just cheaper. Furthermore, within the value sector Intel's Celeron has really floundered, while AMD continues to be a solid performer. I'm hoping it will change. I'm hoping that Intel will again focus on innovation, instead of looking at their neighbor and trying to match or 1-up.

Who knows... all I know is that my current Northwood is nearing the end of it's 3-year life and now that AMD has finally introduced dual-core CPU's, I can say bye-bye to my Hyperthreading baby and actually upgrade the system.

- James

[Chris_Morley]

With the introduction of the X2, every tangible Intel advantage has gone out the window: multitasking and encoding. So I voted AMD.

[altec]

I've always been an intel guy...Hell even from the pentium 1 days...Of course if you're strictly a gamer then yes AMD is the better bet...But for my case I like to have pure power and the ability to rip and backup cd's and dvd's more efficently....Plus I do a ton of multitasking....I do also game but I figured it wouldn't hurt to have the extra power....But I'm waiting a good 3-6 years before upgrading...Waiting for everything to become more than rock solid with 64 bit and multiple cores....Basically I'm waiting to see whats after Longhorn.......


Same here but i voted AMD there 64bit CPUs are alot cheaper then intel and 64bit means alot to me.

[vsrdan]

I'm not going to vote because I like both brands.

I have a 4 year old Pentium III 800EB (on an Asus CUSL2-C, custom built by a "small town" computer shop) which still works as it did on day one. Recently it was hit by lightening (video card damaged - I wasn't using an UPS) but with a replacement, it still works excellent. The newer one I have is an Athlon 64 3200+ based sysem (1 week old) which is excellent, too. So, I like both. For office and scientific work, people still like Intels - I don't know the real reason behind this. For me, if I am going to select an Intel over an AMD for such work, it is because Opterons are too expensive.

[JL_Audio_User]

http://img317.imageshack.us/img317/2282/normal42pv.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)


I always liked the underdogs. :)

[hignaki]

(Note: pleeeeze don't become a flame-war thread!)

I voted Intel. I do love gaming, there's no doubt about that, but for what *I* need, Intel is the way to go. Personal preference factors in, too. I love AMD for it's solid 64-bit systems, and their price point on said 64-bit systems is also lower than Intel. For the time being, though, I'll just stick with my 3.4 Socket T (LGA775 to those who don't know :P ) processor until the Longhorn shift (*if* there is one, it'll be tricky). I'm pretty certain that my next computer (non-mac-mini) will be after that, and it'll probably be AMD if things keep going the way they do.

Best of both worlds.

[threeclaws]

Intel right now but on a whim I would say AMD, I'm only hot on Intel right now bacause of the P/C-M chips, I'm sure once the X2's come down in price my vote will be different.

[UltimaParadox]

Prefer Intel thanks to P-Ms, and my P4s, but if I Was builidng a gaming only rig I would defintly build AMD

Still though everyone is waiting for Yonah :)

[bob]

We will always be waiting for something.

As far as it goes for the underdogs, I never really cared. Amd sucked for gaming back in the day. But, It was either Amd, or this:

http://abcdefg.dajoob.com/cyrix.JPG
I had developed a burning hatred for any Cyrix-powered PC in the 1990s. They were the underdog, made slow and hot running cpus, I would have never personally bought one.

but yeah. Im running a 3000+ Winchester... It works good for the price, video encoding, multi-tasking, DVD ripping. It does the job fine. And I hope having 7 simutaneous copies of Nandub open, editing video and encoding between all of them, counts as a test.

[lozaning]

everyone talks about how much better intel is in multietasking(sp) but my 3200 whinny @2.4 is a great multi tasker, or maybe running winamp, itunes, trillian, azureus, 7 tabs in firefox, vlc media player, and bryce 5 is not enough mutlie tasking for you?

[Chris_Morley]

everyone talks about how much better intel is in multietasking(sp) but my 3200 whinny @2.4 is a great multi tasker, or maybe running winamp, itunes, trillian, azureus, 7 tabs in firefox, vlc media player, and bryce 5 is not enough mutlie tasking for you?
It's not that it CAN'T multitask, but if you've never experienced your workflow on a system with two or more logical processors, then you probably don't know what it's like to have silky-smooth multitasking.

[hignaki]

>> everyone talks about how much better intel is in multietasking(sp) but my 3200 whinny @2.4 is a great multi tasker, or maybe running winamp, itunes, trillian, azureus, 7 tabs in firefox, vlc media player, and bryce 5 is not enough mutlie tasking for you? <<

Wait: Are you even using all of those at once!? Winamp, iTunes, AND VLC!?!?!? Sure, you can open them, and have them displayed, but they're not really doing anything, are they? That would be some sort of horrible sound coming outta your speakers with three different things going on at once.

Not trying to flame, as I hate it when threads like this turn to meaningless crap. I am sure you CAN multitask on an AMD...in fact, with it at that speed, it may as well be excellent. My experience, though, is just better with my Intel 3.4ES. Hyperthreading seems to smooth things over, just a bit.

[bob]

That is exactly how QVC shows off the Hyper-threading capabilities of the P4. They open a cd burner program, open a game demo in a screen about 268x180 resolution, and the open up interent explorer. Hell, I wonder if my K6-200 has Hyper threading....

Anyways, I had 7 copies of nandub open. Each using about 50 megs of ram. I was encoding, and editing 3 1/2 hours of dave chappel. 5 copies of nandub were encoding, the other 2 I was messing around cutting clips out of them.

I could still inter-net while it was doing this. The inter-netting experiance was about the same as on my 100Mhz Pentium computer. It took awhile, but it did it.

[Dillusion]

Of course AMD will win, this is an enthusiast forum, and AMD chips are the favorite ATM with enthusiasts...lol this was an easy for for the f anboys.

[Mushroom Prince]

Of course AMD will win, this is an enthusiast forum, and AMD chips are the favorite ATM with enthusiasts...lol this was an easy for for the f anboys.


Good point.

But I always preferred AMD just because of the price difference.

[DamienThorn]

everyone talks about how much better intel is in multietasking(sp) but my 3200 whinny @2.4 is a great multi tasker, or maybe running winamp, itunes, trillian, azureus, 7 tabs in firefox, vlc media player, and bryce 5 is not enough mutlie tasking for you?

While, I suppose you have several windows open, but it's not until you start doing a host of CPU intensive actions all at once (ie using all those media players, and trying to burn a CD at the same time, and having an email client, webbrowser, antivirus, firewall, messenger, bittorrent client, etc) open that you start to see that, while the AMD can do it, it's a little choppier, whereas the Intel chip will just be a little bit smoother.

This isn't saying that the AMD chips are worse than the Intels - both companies are making amazing chips lately, and you really can't go wrong buying either brand. It all depends on the features you want, and the price you're willing to pay.

http://www.mentallyretired.com/h3/index.cfm/u_116071 (http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/user_summary.php?u=116071)

[lozaning]

yes ALL those programs are running and doing something, itunes was updating ym ipod with like hundreds of songs, winamp was searching for music on the hard drive, vlc was playing batman beggnings, chatting with trillian to at least 6 people, azureus is downloading stuff, i was looking at several pictures of the thing i was modeling in bryce(rendering about evry other min or so). and f@h was running.

[Superfly3176]

I voted amd, never been an intel kinda of guy.

The way I always saw it was amd's processors had better bang for buck and so do their boards. I love my Epox I paid 99 for it about when it came out, formerly used an abit but it got good overclocking reviews and performance. And everytime I looked at intel not only were there chips $$-$$$ more expensive so was a comparable motherboard.

I'll admit I don't do much multi-tasking or video editing, but I've never had a problem burning any DVD's or CD's.

[Lazy_Moron]

I alway have been an Intel guy myself. I had all the Pentium line processors at one point in my life. Right now I have 2 Pentium 4's, one of those with Hyper-threading. And I have a laptop with a Pentium M in it. Every Pentium I used, has been stable, never caused any problems. I have also used some AMD's at some of my friends house of mine, and I will agree AMD's are smoother and better in gaming than Intel's. Right now, if I was to build a computer, I would get an X2 because they proove to be better in everything, even the things Intel always had an advantage over AMD. And with the people hoping Intel will be better than AMD again. It will happen one day. Its always competition. Intel will come out with something, that is better than AMD, and then AMD will do the same again. Probably when Intel gets rid of the Netburst Arachatecture, is when Intel will probably proove to be better than AMD. Then again, it can be worse, and perform even worse than AMD. No one can tell yet. Its like ATI and Nvidia. Back in the FX days, most of ATI's video cards performed way better than Nvidia cards. Then when the Geforce 6 series came out, it was tough competition. And now with the Geforce 7 series, Nvidia is ahead of ATI. We dont know what ATI has in store for us. All we know is about the R520 core, and that it "should" perform better than Nvidias line of cards out now.

[MasterShake]

When I built my first computer I went with a 1 ghz thunderbird because of the price. Back then that was close to top of the line, but I could afford it. Since then every computer I've built has used AMD. The prices are usually good for everything but the high-end, which is understandable because they just came out. I always thought that hyperthreading would have been nice to try sometime, but now with the X2 AMD has something similar that I will eventually buy. The Prescotts sound like they are hot as hell, I can't really get one of those to overclock! The Pentium M looks nice, but some of the boards look very, very expensive. Then again, I don't really know them that well.
I think we can all agree that it's great to have competition like this, I doubt either of these companies or ati and nvidia would be anywhere close to where they are now without it. ;)

[Quanticles]

Monopolies are awesome, I voted Intel

[pxc]

Monopolies are awesome, I voted Intel
I prefer non-crybaby companies... unless I can get a A64 system for $170AR. :D

[Cowcaster88]

Can really say that I'm a hardcore gamer by anymeans. I'm just the type of computer use that likes to do a number of different things, CD ripping, Photoshopping, Music Editing, Office Stuff, and some basic video work. I have to say that I prefer AMD over INTEL, I've used both but AMD just does more for me.

To me INTEL really turned me off with their P3, they never seemed to do much for me.

[Hornswoggler]

I used to be a big Intel fan. They really used to be more innovative and have more of a technological lead. Now when I look at all these new features, its Intel following AMD on things like x86-64, and No-Execute.

My favorite old Intel chips were the Coppermine and Northwoods. Versus the K7 chips of the day, the Intel CPU's had the following advantages:
- Ran cooler
- Used less power
- Less fragile (integrated heat spreader, where the K7 had an exposed core)
- Played games better
- Stable/reliable platform (especially chipsets)

Now since the K8 has come out, and Intel with the Prescott, it seems like the tide has turned. Rather than changing my argument to adapt to Intel's shortcomings, I sold my P4 and bought a 3500+!

Since gaming is my "killer app" (I would MUCH rather have 10% more fps than save a few seconds on a DVD burn), the choice was easy. I also like how today's AMD runs cooler than Intel (at same performance level) and is less fragile than S775. I also think the nForce chipsets (2-4, exclude 1) have improved the AMD "platform" as a whole (improved stability, better drivers than VIA, competitive performance). So... I still have the same arguments, except the brands have reversed.

As a former owner of a 3.06 Northwoods, I have to say that Hyper-threading is overrated. I really couldn't tell much difference when it was on or off. Is it better? Yeah. By how much? I think that gets exaggerated (and about the ONLY talking point today's Intel fans seem to have).

Bottom line: I will evaluate my options and make the best purchase decision when it is time. I think brand loyalty is overrated and bad for the marketplace. It is a shame that so many people are stubborn about their decisions and its almost like their mind is made up without truly evaluating their options. Seems like CPU and graphics card brands are more of a religion than a purchasing decision. How sad.

[madmat]

I voted Intel simply because at this point in time getting into dual-core is going to be cheaper (heh, talk about 180's) with Intel than with AMD.

Yes, I know that the X2 is a faster better built chip than the 820D is but it's also several hundred dollars more, for a savings of that kind of cash I can simply crank the FSB on the Intel and laugh all the way to the bank.

When AMD actually starts offering the better bargain again I'll go back to using them but right now Intel's are cheaper and they still offer pretty damned decent OC headroom which is simply a big plus when you're strapped for cash.

[jarman]

I love it when Intel users regurgitate the BS "silky smooth hyperthreading" moniker. I guess that these users aren't using P4 560s (http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041114/index.html). You know it's bad when Tom's knocks Intel. I'll keep my old P3s and new PM 770. Otherwise, Intel is dead to me baby! AMD has the mojo now! :D


http://www.hardfolding.com/ftag1.php/mem/417.png (http://www.hardfolding.com?go=38&id=417)

[Qwijib0]

If I had been asked about this 2 weeks ago, I would have said intel... but as their douchey tactics against AMD have come to light, and intel's intent to sell your soul to microsoft and WM-DRM with the upcoming East Fork platform this holiday season, I've voted AMD.

The last AMD system I owned was an AM486 compaq in the mid 90s, but I may own one again soon.

[CaptRingold]

If I had been asked about this 2 weeks ago, I would have said intel... but as their douchey tactics against AMD have come to light, and intel's intent to sell your soul to microsoft and WM-DRM with the upcoming East Fork platform this holiday season, I've voted AMD.

The last AMD system I owned was an AM486 compaq in the mid 90s, but I may own one again soon.

I don't doubt Intel's been underhanded, I don't know what AMD intends to do with more business; from what I've heard, I thought they were strapped for capacity? Or is that incorrect?

Anyway, AMD. You can have your "silk smoothness", and I can have the FPS and raw power of my cheap 3200+ at 2.45ghz (It'd be higher if my motherboard would do anything above 245 HTT -- darn BFG. Aint the RAM either, dividers let it OC great, far past DDR 530). I've got a dual 2400+ MP system that's been around here for years, and.. it on occasionally is smoother, but the difference just aint worth a sacrifice in anything else.

As for dual-core.. check out how they stack up in games for Intel! I personally don't consider many of their scores playable :p I can't recall OC's either way, but I'd get a lower end X2 and milk it for every mhz. Maybe not much more expensive, due to using a lower end part, but then you'd get performance Intel seems only to dream of.

Whoever said (fair) competition will keep things going back and forth, I agree with. Intel might need a spanking to get it to the fair part, but if they ever get 50-50 market share, it'll be a year-by-year switch, or only a marginal lead, in performance/price. For now though.. its just been years of Intel dropping the ball, and then watching the ball roll down the hill..

It might also be interesting though if Intel ends up like a Pfizer or Merck, and AMD ends up being a Genentech, to compare it to another industry. The old guard milk their old products, try to get patent extensions, etc, while the new blood stirs up a fervor with anti-cancer drugs, stem cell research, etc, pipelines full of things that'll change the future (and make me smile, since I bought DNA at like $15 / share :D )

[pstang]

nothing against intel, i just prefer amd

[pxc]

and intel's intent to sell your soul to microsoft and WM-DRM with the upcoming East Fork platform this holiday season, I've voted AMD.Sorry to burst your bubble, but maybe you should learn that AMD also supports TCG/DRM with Presidio security technology: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040922120030.html :rolleyes:

[davidj]

AMD for gaming and Intel for multitasking apps. :)

[MasterShake]

Um AMD wins in multitasking now too.

[The Doc]

I build both Intel and AMD rigs so call me neutral if you will.

[vernalex]

I personally do not like either company. That is an irrelevant question. They are businesses selling me products so that they can make a profit.

A better question would be to ask which processor I like better. I like the Pentium 4, but the Prescott core is too hot. I like the Pentium M a lot, but there are few motherboards that use it on desktops. I like the Athlon 64, but I don’t like the motherboard offerings, including the nForce boards.

I personally use a Pentium 4 processor (P4 3.2E). I would like to use an Athlon 64 since it performs better at cooler temperatures and at cheaper prices. But, I am sick of using crappy Taiwanese motherboards that have exploding capacitors, websites in Engrish, questionable drivers, unstable chipsets (cough, VIA) and horrible support. I use Intel processors because I like Intel reference motherboards.

[[RIP]Zeus]

I personally do not like either company. That is an irrelevant question. They are businesses selling me products so that they can make a profit.

A better question would be to ask which processor I like better. I like the Pentium 4, but the Prescott core is too hot. I like the Pentium M a lot, but there are few motherboards that use it on desktops. I like the Athlon 64, but I don’t like the motherboard offerings, including the nForce boards.

I personally use a Pentium 4 processor (P4 3.2E). I would like to use an Athlon 64 since it performs better at cooler temperatures and at cheaper prices. But, I am sick of using crappy Taiwanese motherboards that have exploding capacitors, websites in Engrish, questionable drivers, unstable chipsets (cough, VIA) and horrible support. I use Intel processors because I like Intel reference motherboards.

Not to burst your bubble...but Intel boards are also made in Taiwan :D

[MasterShake]

I personally do not like either company. That is an irrelevant question. They are businesses selling me products so that they can make a profit.

.

An irrelevant question? How the hell is that? I think your answer is irrelevant since you don't like either company. Who cares!! Moron.

[badgadjit]

In my current system, I'm using an Athlon 64, socket 754 (I'd tell you the core and speed, but I forgot, and I'm at work, but it's around 2Ghz). In my previous system I used an Ahtlon socket A (Thoroughbread) 1.2Ghz. And before that I used an Abit BP6 with dual Celeron 400's.

I choose not to exclude one company or the other. Instead I choose based on the current product lineup from both companies. Right now I think Intel has its head up its ass. They are playing a numbers game to attract consumers, but their products are way too hot and power hungry for the performance you get. That spells poor design that isn't worth my money.

Not to mention that Intel puts the crappiest HSF units on their retail processors that I have ever seen. I've seen Intel's Prescott HSF units, and they are very loud. They feature tiny fans that maybe worked well for old school Celeron processors. They are a slap in the face to anyone who shells out $150+ for one of their workstation processors. Personally, I always use an aftermarket HSF, but I chose AMD when I built a computer for my Aunt a few months ago because of their quiet HSF.

That's my $0.02

[Lord Nassirbannipal]

What difference does it make?

Both are top-of-the-line, quality processors. If you multi-task on an AMD or game on an Intel and it gets the job done, then what do you care?

Instead of this petty quibbling that comes up every two weeks about Intel vs. AMD, how about focusing instead on a more important component when it comes to multi-tasking or gaming, such as the RAM or video card?

[MasterShake]

I think the reason they care is because the question at the top of the screen asks if they prefer amd or intel.

[Hornswoggler]

.. how about focusing instead on a more important component when it comes to multi-tasking or gaming, such as the RAM or video card?

Or better yet, hard disk performance. I think disk speed is an afterthought for most.

[Lord Nassirbannipal]

I think the reason they care is because the question at the top of the screen asks if they prefer amd or intel.

I was obviously speaking in general.

[delusion_2005]

I've always been an intel guy...Hell even from the pentium 1 days...Of course if you're strictly a gamer then yes AMD is the better bet...But for my case I like to have pure power and the ability to rip and backup cd's and dvd's more efficently....Plus I do a ton of multitasking....I do also game but I figured it wouldn't hurt to have the extra power....But I'm waiting a good 3-6 years before upgrading...Waiting for everything to become more than rock solid with 64 bit and multiple cores....Basically I'm waiting to see whats after Longhorn.......

Lolz.... yea you tell them man, i am also a Intel guy, i got 3 intel systems so yeah man, Intel P4 are awesome little thing great for Multi tasking.

[MasterShake]

I was obviously speaking in general.

I was obviously speaking about the topic of this thread.

[Marduk]

Love AMD on the desktop...still up in the air on the laptop market.


Pentium M's are great...I jsut haven't had my Turion long enough to really form an opinion on its performance compared to the P-M.

[EricNS]

Pentium M is pretty rape, hopefully we will get some good competition going in the mobile market, the fiercer the competition the more we get for our money faster.