• 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.

What keeps you going to Intel?

G

gerbiaNem

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
2,169
Now that AMD has solved their instability and heat problems. What draws people to buy Intel processors over AMD processors? AMD has either exceeded or matched Intel performance at a similar pricepoint, why buy Intel? I'm not trying to start a flame war, but it just seems that AMD has all of the advantages nowadays, but many people still insist on Intel.
 
Pentium M is being offered in better packages than the Turion from OEM's.

And, uh... hyperthreading? I guess the Pentium D itself has a good price on it for being a dual core, but with $290 Opteron 165's available now that smash the Pentium D at that speed, it's really tough to justify the Pentium D unless you just don't have the extra $30.

This won't turn out well.
 
JetUsafMech said:
Innovation from the company as a whole.
Click to expand...

But this is dwelling on the past.. is it not? Would you buy a ford today over a more reliable and better equiped honda at a similar price because ford had the model t?
 
I am an AMD fan but I do love the Dothan.. Pentium M is the shiznat, its the only reinovation Intel has done in 4-5 years.
 
serbiaNem said:
But this is dwelling on the past.. is it not? Would you buy a ford today over a more reliable and better equiped honda at a similar price because ford had the model t?
Click to expand...


You're saying WiMax, PCI-Express, etc. is the past?
 
Because I already have it, and no money. Quite simple really. If you already have a 478 setup with an older chip, just pop in a new one with some more ram, you're good to go. Hell, check my sig, I upgrade every now and again... spend much less than most people who jump ship to get the A64's/PCI-E combo. I play anything I want.

this started with a celeron, 256mb ram, and a 32mb ooooooold school nvidia gpu. Gone a long way for not that much money. Same PSU, same mobo. Same drives. I'm not even on SATA yet... nothing's drawing me to it. $150 RAM awhile back, $140 video card USED, $170 chip...
 
JetUsafMech said:
You're saying WiMax, PCI-Express, etc. is the past?
Click to expand...

I think the subject was about processors, not general things like that. PCI-Express is a great innovation, but that doesn't seem like a good reason to go with the unrelated Intel CPU, unless you live back when only Intel had PCIe (and thus the distant past)

WiMax looks to have the potential to be one of the most important technologies on earth. I gotta give props to intel for pushing that technology.
 
well a few 5 month ago when dual core wasn't out it was a 640 or a 3500+, i went with the 640 because of the hyper threading and because i was doing more encoding then gaming.
 
I wrote this like 5 times, and couldn't find a way to non-flame.

how about because.
 
robberbaron said:
I think the subject was about processors, not general things like that. PCI-Express is a great innovation, but that doesn't seem like a good reason to go with the unrelated Intel CPU, unless you live back when only Intel had PCIe (and thus the distant past)

WiMax looks to have the potential to be one of the most important technologies on earth. I gotta give props to intel for pushing that technology.
Click to expand...

I understand the original question was another 'why Intel over Amd cpu'. My response was "Innovation from the company AS A WHOLE." I choose to continue to purchase Intel processors because the company, Intel, seems to have a clear vision on where technology is headed, not just cpu's, but tech as a whole. They have the ability to do anything silicon related in house. Intel doesn't need IBM to do 90 nanometer for them, they don't need VIA or Nvidia to make good chipsets for them, they have the ability to say "Hey, the PCI bus needs a kick in the ass, how about..." or "DDR is great, but how about..." or "Hey, wireless is the future fellas, how about we..." or "Mobile computing is where it's at, let's..."
 
JetUsafMech said:
I understand the original question was another 'why Intel over Amd cpu'. My response was "Innovation from the company AS A WHOLE." I choose to continue to purchase Intel processors because the company, Intel, seems to have a clear vision on where technology is headed, not just cpu's, but tech as a whole. They have the ability to do anything silicon related in house. Intel doesn't need IBM to do 90 nanometer for them, they don't need VIA or Nvidia to make good chipsets for them, they have the ability to say "Hey, the PCI bus needs a kick in the ass, how about..." or "DDR is great, but how about..." or "Hey, wireless is the future fellas, how about we..." or "Mobile computing is where it's at, let's..."
Click to expand...

...And that technology is quickly ported over to AMD platforms that outperform them at the same pricepoints.
While AMD isn't nearly as innovative as Intel (they don't have the means to be due to terrible business practice), they are still outperforming them right now for the money with their CPU's. I care more about the CPU performance and cost more than how many patents a company holds. I guess that's where we differ.
 
The OP question was what keeps you going intel not what makes you an AMD fan.
 
robberbaron said:
...And that technology is quickly ported over to AMD platforms that outperform them at the same pricepoints.
While AMD isn't nearly as innovative as Intel (they don't have the means to be due to terrible business practice), they are still outperforming them right now for the money with their CPU's. I care more about the CPU performance and cost more than how many patents a company holds. I guess that's where we differ.
Click to expand...

I think I'm coming off wrong here. What I'm trying to say is: If the money I spend on a cpu is going to a company that has the ability to innovate in MANY aspects of technology as a whole, that company will get my dollar.
The OP's question was why people still buy Intel. I'm just giving my personal reason.
 
JetUsafMech said:
I think I'm coming off wrong here. What I'm trying to say is: If the money I spend on a cpu is going to a company that has the ability to innovate in MANY aspects of technology as a whole, that company will get my dollar.
The OP's question was why people still buy Intel. I'm just giving my personal reason.
Click to expand...

I see, that makes more sense then. A sort of... tribute, if you will, to Intel. That's actually a good reason in my book, not that it matters to you.
 
I've spent $500 on a 148 and 144 opteron. After almost a month and a half waiting for the 144, I jumped for the 148. Well, now I hope to sell my retail 148 cabye 0528gpmw that does 2.8 on Neo4 Plat at 1.4v for like $250. That probably won't happen though.

I would have been so much happier with another prescott for my second comp than this crappy 144 at 2.6 that at the end of it all, would have cost me more than 1.5 times what a precott could have done. And that is why I'm sticking with Intel and hoping for a painless cpu upgrade to cedar mill - one for me and one for my brother whom I gave my celeron D system to.

That, and the fact that the venice 3000+ system I gave my little sister who is in medical school has been spontaneously rebooting(lots of lost work and frustration there), or so she tells me, so now that AMD system is going to eat up more of my free time.

So, fuck you very much AMD! Umm, I mean the AMD-Nvidia Axis. I hate you too, ATI.

And God Bless Intel and their wonderful bug-free chipsets!
 
Bao01 said:
I've spent $500 on a 148 and 144 opteron. After almost a month and a half waiting for the 144, I jumped for the 148. Well, now I hope to sell my retail 148 cabye 0528gpmw that does 2.8 on Neo4 Plat at 1.4v for like $250. That probably won't happen though.

I would have been so much happier with another prescott for my second comp than this crappy 144 at 2.6 that at the end of it all, would have cost me more than 1.5 times what a precott could have done. And that is why I'm sticking with Intel and hoping for a painless cpu upgrade to cedar mill - one for me and one for my brother whom I gave my celeron D system to.

That, and the fact that the venice 3000+ system I gave my little sister who is in medical school has been spontaneously rebooting(lots of lost work and frustration there), or so she tells me, so now that AMD system is going to eat up more of my free time.

So, fuck you very much AMD! Umm, I mean the AMD-Nvidia Axis. I hate you too, ATI.

And God Bless Intel and their wonderful bug-free chipsets!
Click to expand...

Waiting 1.5 months for a processor?? Surely that can't be AMD's fault? And was this 3000+ *cough* overclocked?

And I understand the concept that you stick with Intel for all of the new technology the bring in, but they are a much larger company than AMD. IMHO, AMD has been bringing in more innovation to the cpu industry than Intel lately. The implemented strained SOI with IBM's help (asking for help is not bad when you're a small company) which caused much less heat at 90nm, the implemented HT instead of the FSB, the preplanned a socket with dual-core capabilities far before it was released, not to mention cool n' quite, and nx bit.

They do what they can with their size company.
 
as for now, HT is the only reason. I mean i cant afford the AMD x2... :(

And i spend more time multitasking than gaming...stuff like folding@home and play .avi video/mp3/web surfing or whatever are something i oftent do, and HT helps alot in making sure it doest sutters
 
the way i look it at amd is like 3m or dupont, they dont innovate/make alot of products, they make them better. To the masses especially the dell crowd amd is the underdog. The way i see it they keep intel on their toes to keep innovating. Intel makes somethingm, amd makes it better, then intel makes another thing. Its a back and forth cycle that keeps everything moving.
 
It was cheap. Going AMD would have more than doubled the cost of my last upgrade, whereas I got the computer in my sig for $410.
 
because I trust Intels, They offer less problems. Intel donates alot of money to chartity and education, intels gives tons of scholorships and gives free technology to schools and promotes science and engineering where amd does none Intels are more stable and run better, they are smoother if you ask me.

all in all, I care about things like education and money given to scholorships and things like that. More important that a few more fps in a game.


amd continuies to suck.

Im building a new system now and It will be a Intel. i will never build an amd system, because they just flat out suck.,
 
Scotch77 said:
amd continuies to suck.

Im building a new system now and It will be a Intel. i will never build an amd system, because they just flat out suck.,
Click to expand...

Congrats on being completely ignorant of the facts. I'm sure people will take you much more seriously now. ;)

I've owned three intel systems before. They were all mediocre at best, except for the last one I got stuck with which just plain sucked. I played around on my friends 2.7GHz P4. I was impressed, only because at the time I was running a horribly slow PII Celeron. Then I built my first PC, an AMD machine. It clocked at 2GHz even and floored me. I could do things just as well, if not sometimes better, then my friends P4, and he had a better video card (barely) and better RAM then me.

Why do *I* believe people go back to intel? They know the name. When a grandma goes into a ma-and-pa computer shop, all she knows is that she wants a "pentium". :p
 
CHAoS_NiNJA said:
Congrats on being completely ignorant of the facts. I'm sure people will take you much more seriously now. ;)

I've owned three intel systems before. They were all mediocre at best, except for the last one I got stuck with which just plain sucked. I played around on my friends 2.7GHz P4. I was impressed, only because at the time I was running a horribly slow PII Celeron. Then I built my first PC, an AMD machine. It clocked at 2GHz even and floored me. I could do things just as well, if not sometimes better, then my friends P4, and he had a better video card (barely) and better RAM then me.

Why do *I* believe people go back to intel? They know the name. When a grandma goes into a ma-and-pa computer shop, all she knows is that she wants a "pentium". :p
Click to expand...

Heh, I remember in eastern europe, everyone asks if you run a pentium lol. And thank you scotch, the "amd plain sucks" argument won me over.. where do I buy?
 
I keep buying intel just for the fact that their chipsets are much more stable than AMD's. I am not knocking AMD chips themselves. Their chips seems to outperform Intel's best on many levels. But, since intel makes their own chipsets they have very good R&D to work out all of their issues. I have very rarely seen an intel board go wacky for no reason. I have seen other manufacturers implementations of Intel's chipsets go wacky, but an Intel mobo made by Intel is very stable. That is what I need more than speed right now.

Since AMD relies on 3rd party manufacturers (nVidia, Via, SiS..etc) to create stable platforms for them, there is a higher chance that not all of the "quirkiness" will be caught and solved. nVidia has come a long way in terms of stability for the AMD platform while retaining the speed, but the "weirdness" is still there.

I do not thing AMD CPUs are unstable, just their platform.
 
i got an AMD computer at home (because Intel was more expensive at the time) and I had lots of problems with the motherboard chipset (VIA!!!!!) - so i'm not a !!!!!! for either company, i'm neutral in that sense. i got a Centrino laptop and love it, very stable. i dont think i'll ever buy another AMD computer now, i prefer the idea of spending money on a product that is made by the king of the market. also i dont game and Intel's new products from 2006 but more so 2007 and onwards look very exciting. for example the way Intel can reduce process technology so much quicker than AMD impresses me.
 
I buy Intel for similar reasons to many here: stability and knowing I will not have weird quirks as long as I go with an Intel chipset. For as many people as say the nForce4 is a solid platform, I know of SB/SCSI conflicts, memory timing issues, and other quirks that don't end up in Intel platforms, and those are just some of the bigger ones.

Also, my current CPU, a P4 2.4 Northwood, was just plain faster than whatever AMD offered at the time (AXPs I think). Right now AMD does have the crown in _most_ areas (some media/rendering apps still prefer Intel), and AMD doesn't have anything that can compare to the pure multitasking goodness of a Dual Core EE chip (2 real CPUs, 2 virtual) yet. If I were to build a system now I'd definately be using an 840EE as the CPU.
 
It's ironic that my most recent Intel experience is anything but satisfying. It has experienced many program crashes, it has "killed" a few memory sticks, and it runs some programs sluggishly. Could it be the motherboard itself? Or the power supply unit that I was using at the time?
 
NulloModo said:
AMD doesn't have anything that can compare to the pure multitasking goodness of a Dual Core EE chip (2 real CPUs, 2 virtual) yet. If I were to build a system now I'd definately be using an 840EE as the CPU.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm.....

According to this article, the 840EE gets outperformed by the X2 in almost every multithreading test. I'm especially impressed with the Lame MT MP3 encoding results using the intel compiler. AMD even wins there.

AMD clearly owns right now. :D


As far as multiprocessor systems, I'll stick with my dual PIII-1000 setup used for backup purposes, since I wouldn't dream of wasting my money on upgrading it to a newer mediocre intel dual core.*

* - strictly my opinion here. your thoughts may differ.
 
I don't build either exclusively, but the reasons I have for building the Intel systems I do are one or both of the following:

1) Small and quiet BTX

2) Inexpensive dual-core
 
1) Hyperthreading - cheap SMP like goodness.
2) Intel chipsets rock.
3) Related to #2, Intel's chipset drivers are the best. No crappy Via drivers, no NV IDE driver issues, etc.

AMD has improved quite a bit, but the chipsets are still not perfect. For users that want a box that "just works" Intel is the way to go.
 
DejaWiz said:
Hmmmm.....

According to this article, the 840EE gets outperformed by the X2 in almost every multithreading test. I'm especially impressed with the Lame MT MP3 encoding results using the intel compiler. AMD even wins there.

AMD clearly owns right now. :D
Click to expand...

If it stays stable................
 
Burner27 said:
If it stays stable................
Click to expand...

For that matter, Intel's later platforms are actually less stable than they were back in the days of the PII/440BX chipset.

<deleted some negative comments>

(Though I am a current AMD rig owner, I've had less-than-stable AMD platforms in the past.)
 
Morley said:
1) Small and quiet BTX
Click to expand...
I wish amd wasn't so boneheaded about supporting BTX. :( BTX is so superior to ATX it's not even funny.
 
DougLite said:
1) Hyperthreading - cheap SMP like goodness.
2) Intel chipsets rock.
3) Related to #2, Intel's chipset drivers are the best. No crappy Via drivers, no NV IDE driver issues, etc.

AMD has improved quite a bit, but the chipsets are still not perfect. For users that want a box that "just works" Intel is the way to go.
Click to expand...
Before they issued a BIOS for the D945Gcz I had massive issues with enabling DMA on SATA hard drives...
 
pxc said:
I wish amd wasn't so boneheaded about supporting BTX. :( BTX is so superior to ATX it's not even funny.
Click to expand...
Shit you not I saw an MSI board with a Geforce 6100/430 chipset that was mBTX.
 
Those benchmarks aren't what I am talking about. Sure, the X2 4800 performs better on a single multithreaded app at the same time as a P4 840EE. However, in overall system responsiveness, quickness switching between things, and just how 'smooth' things feel (Granted, something very hard to benchmark) the EE has it all over the X2.

DejaWiz said:
Hmmmm.....

According to this article, the 840EE gets outperformed by the X2 in almost every multithreading test. I'm especially impressed with the Lame MT MP3 encoding results using the intel compiler. AMD even wins there.

AMD clearly owns right now. :D


As far as multiprocessor systems, I'll stick with my dual PIII-1000 setup used for backup purposes, since I wouldn't dream of wasting my money on upgrading it to a newer mediocre intel dual core.*

* - strictly my opinion here. your thoughts may differ.
Click to expand...
 
E4g1e said:
For that matter, Intel's later platforms are actually less stable than they were back in the days of the PII/440BX chipset. C'mon, heat problems with the latest desktop Intel CPUs and chipsets which seem to introduce new bugs... :(
Click to expand...
I haven't had any stability problems with any Intel CPUs (P4 NW & Prescott) or chipsets (850 and newer) for the last 4 years... or even before that.

I can not say the same about AMD chipsets (or even A64 CPUs) over the last 4 years.
 
pxc said:
I wish amd wasn't so boneheaded about supporting BTX. :( BTX is so superior to ATX it's not even funny.
Click to expand...

I thought BTX was for SFF systems? Or is it going to move over for full size computers too?

Personally, I don't give a damn about small and quiet, I will always have a full tower with fans going everywhere, loaded up with at least 4 internal HDs, 2 or 3 optical drives, and more expansion slots than I can shake a stick at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top