what converted you to AMD?

[Ebenol]

I went AMD because a 2500+@3200+ was way cheaper than anything else available to me, comparing performance/price.

 

[Woblin_Goblin]

The first computer my family owned had a AMD 5x86 133MHz cpu. It was slower than intel chips but cheaper. I bought my K6-2 because of the price and the fact it offered similar performance to the Pentium 1 MMX chips. I bought my Athlon TBird 1.33Ghz because not only was it cheaper than the PIII's but also much faster.

The only Intel CPU I've owned was a Celron 566 which I bought because it was cheap and easy to overclock.

My current CPU, the old Athlon XP 2500 probably wasn't the smartest choice but it offered a easy overclock to 3200+. It didn't cost much either so I suppose it is a fine CPU.

If I had to buy, I'd definently go AMD today since I am a gamer.. I use P4's with Asus boards and plenty of RAM at work every day and I can't notice a difference between them and non hyperthreading systems. And yes, I do multi task somewhat. Maybe if I was encoding divx or mp3's or something when I'm not supposted to it would make more of a difference. But to me, the gaming performance is the top priority so I'd choose AMD.

 

[Nazo]

Erm, I'm going to have to say that getting a 2500+ to run at 3200+ for probably even less than half the price of a 3200+ is, indeed, a smart choice...

With normal multitasking in a true multitasking OS, you won't notice a difference. It's heavy stuff where you can tell with hyperthreading and such. I still remember back when I had Windows 9x and tried to do several things at once, often it would cause MP3s to skip or something like that when I started a program that had to work a lot. These days you don't see that.

 

[Burner27]

Erm, I'm going to have to say that getting a 2500+ to run at 3200+ for probably even less than half the price of a 3200+ is, indeed, a smart choice...

With normal multitasking in a true multitasking OS, you won't notice a difference. It's heavy stuff where you can tell with hyperthreading and such. I still remember back when I had Windows 9x and tried to do several things at once, often it would cause MP3s to skip or something like that when I started a program that had to work a lot. These days you don't see that.

What speed/Model of AMD will outperform my 3.4c?

 

[[Spectre]]

What speed/Model of AMD will outperform my 3.4c?

In gaming or in productivity? Probably with out knowing which iwould say the 3800+ and 4000+. Maybe the 3500+ but that would probably be close.

 

[Burner27]

In gaming or in productivity? Probably with out knowing which iwould say the 3800+ and 4000+. Maybe the 3500+ but that would probably be close.

I do 50% - gaming 50% - productivity.

 

[nilepez]

I've gone AMD over 4 years ago and never turned back but I would like to know how or why others switched to AMD. I'm just curious.

food for thought: if AMD one day becomes top dog and starts throwing their weight around like intel will you still stay with AMD or switch to a competitor?

For me, that's a very small factor. I tend to go for price/performance, and that was a good choice at the time. I'm upgrading now to a 3000 or 3200 in the next week. However, had I taken the plunge before the Athlon 64s, I probably would have gone with an Intel 2.4c (almost did that back then).

Make no mistake, I want competition (and I wish Intel would get off their a$$ and provide some), but I'm not stuck on any particular brand, simply because they're the underdog.

 

[TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R]

I converted to AMD b/c of price, back when the p4 was king. I just couldn't afford an intel-based pc. I've stayed because of the Athlon 64. These things kick ass.

 

[iNViSiGOD]

The K6/2 converted me to AMD because you got a hell of a bang for the buck. They were roughly 18% cheaper than Intel equivilant and ran damn near the capacity. I've owned one of each AMD ever since the K6/2 and thats all i've owned.

K6/2 500
Classic Slot A Athlon 700
Thunderbird 1.2ghz
Palamino 1.7ghz
Tbred 2.0ghz
Barton 2.0ghz
AMD64 2.0ghz

Guess i forgot the MP but never saw a use for it.

 

[kirbyrj]

I jumped with the 2500+ to 3200+ OC from a p4 2.6c @3.0 ghz on a p4p800 deluxe. Needed the cash, but still needed a computer, so it was all about bang for the buck. Since then I've had a A64 2800+@2.35 Ghz, and now I'm building an SLI system with a 3200 winnie. The ONLY thing I still wish I had from the Intel machine was Hyper-Threading. I don't know what it was, but the computer ran everything smooth as butter. Even today, my brother will be encoding DIVX and doing anything else on his computer without any slowdown, and I'm almost jealous since I sold him the stupid thing .

 

[Nazo]

The ONLY thing I still wish I had from the Intel machine was Hyper-Threading. I don't know what it was, but the computer ran everything smooth as butter.

HT lets the processor do two tasks at once to some extent. Kind of a hardware multitasking. It's actually a really good idea, just, in gaming/etc, the difference is a little less noticable.

 

[Tiny]

I was hooked by the price way back, when I built my first computer...an Athlon 700MHz Slot A computer. I actually still have the mobo, ram, and proc sitting in a box. lol.

I am still with them today because of the great prices throughout AMDs history since I first used them, and since I grew up with them so-to-speak...I am a bit of a loyalist until the company trys to decieve me, and AMD hasn't done that yet.

My second computer build was a Intel Celeron 1Ghz, that I my father asked me to build for him, that was handed down later to my little brother to play with, but is now back in my fathers hands and serves as his Linux tinkering box.

 

[chaos4u]

when i was looking to upgrade my system a celron 400 slot 1 on a bx mother board


i saw the performance charts and reviews that was palcing the athlon t birds ahead of all the intel solutions and of course the price was right and compatabillity seemed spot on .. so why not ..

got one and its been kicking ass ever since .


then intel dropped the ball big time and went with rambus
again my next upgrade was pointing towards amd
the big kicker was the nforce2 with soundstorm

great perfromance great price and awesome sound i couldnt argue and bam i had a a7n8x deluxe have been with this system untill now next week my new system arrives .

this time intel has got its act together though and the decidon was a tad bit tougher

i chose amd over intel again all though the ASUS P5AD2-E Premium was awful sexy and hard to resist

but dfi came to the rescue with the lan party sli dr and i was back in amd's boat again

and its hard to ignore that amd always spanks intel in the applications that i use most frequently. .

 

[DJDishwateR]

My first AMD(first rig was a cyrix) rig was a K6-2 with a 1 MB cache on the motherboard, ever since then I've been strictly AMD.

 

[Catsonar]

Hey,

i stuck with AMD because of the simple fact of not having togive an arm and a leg to build a system. Even now a days having a career to support myself the choice is still AMD. Cheaper and performs better in the applications i use,is a winner in my book. ( first Amd rig at a blazing 266mhz) had AMD64 3000+ winnie @2.6. Loved it

 

[Asazman]

mostly common sense. enough said.

If you were to ask the average dipshit computer shopper (99.99% of people) if they would like a 2.0Ghz AMD 64-bit processor or a 3.2Ghz Intel Pentium 4 processor, they will always, 100% of the time go with the pentium.

I'm not dissing Intel or anything, but they're expensive and not my cup o tea. AMDs are much more effecient and cost-efficient.

 

[bobsaget]

The overclocking abilities of the Barton core.

 

[Catsonar]

mostly common sense. enough said.

If you were to ask the average dipshit computer shopper (99.99% of people) if they would like a 2.0Ghz AMD 64-bit processor or a 3.2Ghz Intel Pentium 4 processor, they will always, 100% of the time go with the pentium.

I'm not dissing Intel or anything, but they're expensive and not my cup o tea. AMDs are much more effecient and cost-efficient.

I agree. Now if AMD would market themselves better, those ppl,saying that they'd go with a Pentium wouldn't say that. Intel promotes itself everywhere.

 

[ColinR]

I didn't so much as turn to AMD as turn away from Intel.

My first machine (purchased by parents) was a Packard Bell 286 (ripped off by Dixons (UK based electrical chain)).
A while later my parents bought a totally new machine (in addition to the 286 - we were a dual rig family!). This was because my little brother was doing a computer course at school while I was away at Uni. I got a 486DX33 with an amazing case. This case is very similar to the BTX form factor in features (but most definitely not in size!). Upside down motherboard, psu at bottom.

Anyway, that got long in the tooth, so had to upgrade. How to do it on the cheap - especially as the aforementioned little brother was now going to uni so he got a new P100 rig, and I had very little money from a rubbish job? The answer presented itself...the plan was to get a new motherboard (and spend quite heavily on that) and a cheap processor.

I got a Cyrix6x86 and an Intel VX motherboard. Later upgrading the processor to a decent one (K6/2 300). This pattern has repeated itself quite a bit.

Unfortunately my brother had a kickarse Pentium233MMX that would overclock to 315 (on a cold day). And even my later 450MHz K6/2 couldn't beat it.

A Super7 motherboard with moderate K6/2 then later a top of the line K6/2 (couldn't find 2+ or 3 for love nor money)

KT7A-Raid (fantastic motherboard) with unlocked Duron 800@1066 (if I was playing Black & White). Later I got an unlocked 1400 that wouldn't go much quicker than stock. I had this machine way too long. But the Quake 3 based games ran quite nicely on it...

My latest machine is a good motherboard (MSI Neo2 s939) with the weakest chip available (A64 3000+). Saying "weakest" is a bit unfair, I suppose. I have an eye to turning to a dual-core chip when they come down in price to a reasonable level (I guess 12 months or so). Also need to get a new gfx card too (that has been upgrade - I'm not running a Cirrus Logic on this thing! )

 

[ColinR]

Intel promotes itself everywhere.

Plink plinkety plonk plink...

 

[sirknight]

Just like everyone else says, it was the price and amd's performace that made me choose its chips over intel's. I was able to get AMD XP 2500+ plus ASUS A7N8X Deluxe for the price of Intel P4 2.4C cpu. However, I am not brand loyal, I would just as easily buy intel if it had good deals like amd has. Overall, I think that amd is now making awesome processors. I am able to play games very smoothly, no complaints.

 

[feigned]

I've never had my primary machine be an Intel in the past 10 years. Three dual Intel systems in the past year, but they're all sold and working happily in someone else's hands. Good systems, just not what I wanted or needed.

AMD 4 lyfe, yo.

 

[ebmusicman84]

I've never liked Intel, I have always liked the underdog, I have my fair share of Cyrix IIs and AMD 1000s.

However, bottom line, I go with the best cost/performance ratio. I don't see any point in spending $500 for a processor that will give me MAYBE %5 better results in things OTHER than gaming. If Intel releases a competitively priced processor that significantly outperforms any other processor... I'll go with them.

 

[Dataman]

Price.

Both are the same, but one is less $$$$.

DM

 

[IceBawx]

They came to my door with pretty pamphlets

Naa, I just wanted to try somethin' different, and I liked it.

 

[elm669]

Naa, I just wanted to try somethin' different, and I liked it.

What Ice said and had to have the mflops