• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

AMD or Intel?

D

DeadlyAura

CoalWagen
2FA
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
5,053
So, I know posting in the Intel forum will get some biased results, but I figure its the best place to ask.

In the past I've always been an AMD guy. I never liked Intel, but now I'm thinking about building my first Intel PC. If I build one it will be a C2D, but I'm looking for responses from you guys to see what you think.
 
At this point in time, Intel for sure. Unless you're in the lower middle/lower end range where AMD has a few good, cheap chips Intel has a huge advantage over AMD for the time being.
 
I look at it like this. AM2 is an upgraded 939.
Core2duo At the same clock speed as a am2 say 3Ghz is 20% faster I believe we worked it out to be.

So for the price I'de go Intel right now I like the Intel newer mobos faaaar more. Up until the 690 which just came out all the AM2 boards really just seem like 939s nothing too impressive. This is my first Intel rig since the PIII 500. I have no regrets but if AMD actually put something good out in a cpl years I'll hop right back.
 
I have never had an Intel rig bit I would buy an Intel CPU for you are going for a gaming machine. The AMD CPUs only start to beat out the Intel CPUs in price/performance when you go to the low end. I have always gone for the best price/performance when choosing CPUs. Mu first was an AMD Thunderbird B, then 2 Athlon XPs(2600 and 3200), followed by an Opteron 165. My next one will be an Intel Quad via the Intel Retail Edge program.
 
Hi,

Was in the same boat. I have been an AMD user since the K6-2 333. I have built or upgraded my processors several times with them. From 333 to 550 to a new build of AXP1600 to a 2500 Barton. I have used several 2500 bartons in a few builds for my relatives. Loved every single of of them. Very good CPUs for what I used them for.

However we it come time for a new system due to wanting different video. I had to start from the ground up. The current offerings of AMD really didn't impress me. I wound up going with a P35 and a E6420 combo. I love it! Very easy with the overclocking. Runs cool @ 3.2 GHz. Runs like a champ gaming and pretty much anything else.

I am not saying jump the ship AMD is going down but if AMD came out with something like the C2D, I would think about going back to AMD if they had something powerful to really offer. As a matter of fact, the 2500 Barton that I have is OC'ed @ 2.2GHZ and still works as my workshop and folding box. It was and still is a great little workhorse which I have no problems with. I just wished AMD had something similar when I decided to upgrade. The Conroe core reminds me of my Barton core. I cannot say I am disappointed as of yet.

later,
shaggy
 
I had every incentive to go for Intel when I upgraded from my 3700+ Sandy in March. It was the only AMD CPU I've ever owned and it was leaps and bounds ahead of my P4 3.0E I had prior, the P3 555MHz I had before that, the PII before, and so on..

I went against my common sense and went with a A64 5600+. For once, I'm not supporting what I found to be the better product or even the better value, just for the sake of supporting the "little man" and preserving competition. How altruistic of me, huh? ;)
 
Heh, I love my 3700+ San Diego, best processor I've ever owned, and overclocks like you wouldn't imagine. <3
 
DeadlyAura said:
Heh, I love my 3700+ San Diego, best processor I've ever owned, and overclocks like you wouldn't imagine. <3
Click to expand...

Don't see your OC in your sig, how high did you get it?

I was/am very amateur, didn't get past 2.7GHz.. then later had to drop it to 2.65Ghz.
 
SPARTAN VI said:
Don't see your OC in your sig, how high did you get it?

I was/am very amateur, didn't get past 2.7GHz.
Click to expand...

Was running solid at 2.8 for a while, never tried to go past that. I knocked it back down to stock clock speeds after a while though when I stopped gaming as hard, but I think I might pick it back up again to 2.6 or so.
 
I can't see AMD appealing to enthusiasts. After considering buying AMD and briefly looking around, I've come to the conclusion that AMD is either:

(1) for people interested in the low end of the market - specifically people with limited financial means
(2) or rabid AMD fans who will buy their product solely for the brand name.
(3) or people who know they've got old technology and can't be bothered to upgrade.
(4) or people who, for unknown reasons, prefer the the underdog and hate the more successful companies like Intel and Microsoft

(Disclaimer: there are, obviously, exceptions to the above.)

Most people who like to tinker with computers and are not broke or obsessed about brand names will not go AMD nowdays.
 
echn111 said:
I can't see AMD appealing to enthusiasts. After considering buying AMD and briefly looking around, I've come to the conclusion that AMD is either:

(1) for people interested in the low end of the market - specifically people with limited financial means
(2) or rabid AMD fans who will buy their product solely for the brand name.
(3) or people who know they've got old technology and can't be bothered to upgrade.
(4) or people who, for unknown reasons, prefer the the underdog and hate the more successful companies like Intel and Microsoft

(Disclaimer: there are, obviously, exceptions to the above.)

Most people who like to tinker with computers and are not broke or obsessed about brand names will not go AMD nowdays.
Click to expand...

Although that may be generally true in some cases, there are a lot of exceptions. AMD has always been my company, and I have been waiting for them to come out with a rival to Intel before I upgraded, but lately they have failed me.

If you followed the hardware in the past you would see that AMD was a better company for a long time. I would NEVER have built an Intel machine back then just because of all the issues that I saw with Intel machines. Being a devout AMD fan, its hard for me to switch to Intel, and I am only recently considering it.

I'm not bashing your opinion, I'm just offering mine.
 
i side with that. im just waiting it out. if amd exits the competitive cpu market then i will stop using there stuff... until then i am waiting for there neft big thing.

having said that i also use intel chips and will most likly go to them for my second htpc. in the end they both have a place in the market.
 
DeadlyAura said:
Although that may be generally true in some cases, there are a lot of exceptions. AMD has always been my company, and I have been waiting for them to come out with a rival to Intel before I upgraded, but lately they have failed me.

If you followed the hardware in the past you would see that AMD was a better company for a long time. I would NEVER have built an Intel machine back then just because of all the issues that I saw with Intel machines. Being a devout AMD fan, its hard for me to switch to Intel, and I am only recently considering it.

I'm not bashing your opinion, I'm just offering mine.
Click to expand...

I agree that AMD had better products than Intel in the past. And therefore people going Intel back then, would only have done so because of the brand name and the implied safety the Intel name brought, or because they couldn't be bothered.

Enthusiasts who liked to tinker would have bought AMD and definitely not Intel.

So I suppose a 5th category to my original list would be long term AMD system builders. I can understand why it would be hard to switch.

I'm simply looking at it from a pair fresh eyes, with no brand loyalty and unfettered by years spent building AMD systems. Not pro-anything; just a typical enthusiast with an interest in system building. From this perspective, Intel is currently the way to go.
 
I'm thinking of building a new machine using an AMD X2 5200+ (2x1MB L2). My reasoning is primarily due to pricing in the Canadian market where the cost of the 5200+ is ~$30-$40 less then an E6300/E6320 yet offers performance (for the things I use a computer for) comparable to an E6400/E6420, which costs ~$80 more then the 5200+.

For my dollars, that seems like pretty good value in eyes.
 
kick said:
I'm thinking of building a new machine using an AMD X2 5200+ (2x1MB L2). My reasoning is primarily due to pricing in the Canadian market where the cost of the 5200+ is ~$30-$40 less then an E6300/E6320 yet offers performance (for the things I use a computer for) comparable to an E6400/E6420, which costs ~$80 more then the 5200+.

For my dollars, that seems like pretty good value in eyes.
Click to expand...

You can get the E4500 for around the same price of the 5200+, the E4500 operating at a stock 2.2GHZ will be comparable to the E6400/E6420.
 
DeadlyAura said:
In the past I've always been an AMD guy. I never liked Intel, but now I'm thinking about building my first Intel PC
Click to expand...



It should never be about liking company A over company B,it should only be about price versus performance,and what you need the hardware to do.Then figure out what you have to spend,and go from there.

Any kind of brand loyality,is horridly stupid.Buy what is best at a given moment,given your current and short term computing goals.
 
Manny Calavera said:
It should never be about liking company A over company B,it should only be about price versus performance,and what you need the hardware to do.Then figure out what you have to spend,and go from there.

Any kind of brand loyality,is horridly stupid.Buy what is best at a given moment,given your current and short term computing goals.
Click to expand...

I agree, that is why I am contemplating the switch. Its just that, I've seemed to have better luck with AMD in the past versus Intel. They left a bad taste in my mouth. But nowadays, they seem to be worth the switch.
 
Manny Calavera said:
It should never be about liking company A over company B,it should only be about price versus performance,and what you need the hardware to do.Then figure out what you have to spend,and go from there.

Any kind of brand loyality,is horridly stupid.Buy what is best at a given moment,given your current and short term computing goals.
Click to expand...



+100000000000000000000000000000000000 x infinity!!!


i wish more people understood this, by NO means is amd an "underdog" or "little guy" any more and hasnt been for some time.
 
Manny Calavera said:
It should never be about liking company A over company B,it should only be about price versus performance,and what you need the hardware to do.Then figure out what you have to spend,and go from there.

Any kind of brand loyality,is horridly stupid.Buy what is best at a given moment,given your current and short term computing goals.
Click to expand...

Even if you own stock in company A? :D
 
It's a matter of how much money you have.
If you have the money for a midrange rig and up- Intel is the way to go.
If you're looking for really cheap then AM2 is your fix.
Simply put, AMD have failed to retaliate to Intels C2D and C2Q processors, so they offer less performance . They just revamped 939 for DDR2 and changed socket, so they have a VERY OLD solution for todays market.
BUT, they still offer enough performance for most users and their MB solutions tend to be cheaper (as well as their CPU's).
So if you have the money go Intel.
 
Manny Calavera said:
It should never be about liking company A over company B,it should only be about price versus performance,and what you need the hardware to do.Then figure out what you have to spend,and go from there.

Any kind of brand loyality,is horridly stupid.Buy what is best at a given moment,given your current and short term computing goals.
Click to expand...

Yes, but unfortunately human beings don't work that way, and are vulnerable to things like this. :eek:
 
I agree ..... i vote also for intel:cool:


altcon said:
It's a matter of how much money you have.
If you have the money for a midrange rig and up- Intel is the way to go.
If you're looking for really cheap then AM2 is your fix.
Simply put, AMD have failed to retaliate to Intels C2D and C2Q processors, so they offer less performance . They just revamped 939 for DDR2 and changed socket, so they have a VERY OLD solution for todays market.
BUT, they still offer enough performance for most users and their MB solutions tend to be cheaper (as well as their CPU's).
So if you have the money go Intel.
Click to expand...
 
coldpower27 said:
You can get the E4500 for around the same price of the 5200+, the E4500 operating at a stock 2.2GHZ will be comparable to the E6400/E6420.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but given that the 5200+ will give comparable performance for less money (E4500 costs ~$20 more... half a tank of gas for me) then there's little incentive for me to buy Intel.

If I was looking to spend the $$$ for something at the higher-end then I would probably side-step AMD and go for an E6600 or something better.
 
kick said:
Fair enough, but given that the 5200+ will give comparable performance for less money (E4500 costs ~$20 more... half a tank of gas for me) then there's little incentive for me to buy Intel.

If I was looking to spend the $$$ for something at the higher-end then I would probably side-step AMD and go for an E6600 or something better.
Click to expand...

Except that with the right cooling equipment, such a chip "will" have similar performance to processors in the $600+ range. Intel chips can be massively overclocked and result in excellent price/performance for people who like to mess around with computers. That's why enthusiasts like them. If you spend the time and like messing around and tinkering with your PC, you will achieve far better price/performance from Intel than AMD.

If all you do is plug the CPU in and use it at stock in the same way as a typical "end user" with little or no computer tweaking experience, then yes go for it. However, I would never class such end-users as enthusiasts. Also, I agree that if you're on a very tight budget (unemployed, student, on hard times etc.) and have little money there's nothing wrong with AMD. So if $20 pushes your budget over the line that's fine.

However, if you're an enthusiast who likes to have their $200 CPU outperform $800 cpu's, then go Intel.
 
Intel for now...all the new AMD benchmarks are just that...benchmarks. Mostly hear-say too, so I would wait at least until Christmas to make any decisions.
 
AMDS are not that cheap. The way echn111 talks about them a deluded person might get the idea that AMDs are the machine of the proletariot.

Also, a little reading will show you that subpar technologies are often the more successful. Success in the marketplace has nothing to do whatsoever with superior technology.

The real difference may be in overclocking, but most people simply dont have the time or patience to overclock their pcs when they need to use them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top