Who Has Swapped To Intel Since CD2 release??

Changed To Intel?


  • Total voters
    365

Saintster

n00b
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
48
I'm staying with my Opty 165, because gaming really doesn't need a C2D yet.

Yeah but it's so much nicer. i went from a Fx60 to an e6600@3.6 the fx was 3.0 and it totally took the bottleneck out of my system and it runs about 20c cooler but I will admit my cooling is better with this rig than with the AMD. You are right though you can still game with the opty for sure.
 

Stupac

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
1,349
My X2 is still running fine. No need at this point for me. Maybe in a year see what CPU is out there.
 

aiya

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
1,240
opty 165 @ 2.8ghz to e2140 @ 3ghz

upgraded because it was cheap and wanted to try intel... again (first/last intel, pentium 266 :p)
 

shaggy77

Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
765
hi,

I have not owned an Intel CPU my box had a P133 back in 97. There was some trouble with the box and I found a really awesome computer tech. He turned me on to AMD with the K6 333 based system when I upgraded. Since 1998 I have used AMD pretty much exclusively for any of my system builds. I have probably built a dozen or so for myself and family/friends. However when it came time to retire my beloved AXP 2500, I had to make a choice. In the middle of summer, I was itching for more graphic horsepower. I could not upgrade graphics without upgrading the CPU/MB. After reviewing different articles, I decided to give Intel another try since nothing AMD was offering showed any real potential.

So I wound up building an Intel platform with a Gigabyte P35-DS3R MB and E6420 C2D CPU. I run Crucial Ballastix PC6400 RAM. Performance wise, it runs super fast at 3.2 GHz. The P35 seems to be a pretty stable performance chipset. I can not complain. There is also room for some descent generation growth which is good.

I still have my AXP 2500. It is now a shop PC running at 2.2 GHz. Great for when I need quick info or just to screw around elsewhere in the house. Would I go to AMD again? Absolutely! I would like to see AMD succeed as best as possible. I think if they can get the whole CPU/GPU integration together better I think they will rise out of debt pretty quick. I hope someone there really knows what they are doing. Seeing all the delays behind a new cpu core and such cannot bode well with anybody. It better be good when it is finally released.

shaggy
 
R

ring.of.steel

Guest
wow, i was under the impession that 80% + of people had changed to intel

im not alone :D
 

rahavsmt

Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
513
I went from X2 3800 @ 2.5 to Q6600 @ 3.6. My DVD and X264 encoding just goes buttload faster.

wow, i was under the impession that 80% + of people had changed to intel

im not alone :D

Well that's probably because it was posted under AMD section. Try posting it under Intel section and the difference might be bigger.
 

goldy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
1,892
Never personally owned any Intel CPU's. Went from AMD XP to Opteron 165 @ 2.7 , I have no need to upgrade at the moment. Those C2D quad cores are decently priced though, seen them for pretty cheap on SD.
 

magoo

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
14,462
I had an FX-57, really fast,still is.

Then I saw the OC potential of these C2Ds and was upgrading........the price was right and the time was right, so I got a 6300, a 6600, and recently a Quad 6600. Really like them all. I think all three added together were less than the 57 at the time.:eek:

Still use the 57 and have a 3500+ in a home theater set-up.
 

MX-5 Dave

Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
568
I had an FX-55 that was OC'd a bit. I am now on an E4300 C2D @ 3.0 and it kicks the everloving crap out of the OC'd FX-55


Like that other guy said, Intel was just much better this round, next generation who knows.
 

zombiebeat

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2001
Messages
1,365
Went from an Athlon XP1600+ to a Q6600, not really noticed much difference tbh.




















yeah riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhht! :p:D
 

reswob

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
1,590
I switched! @_@ Got myself an E2140 M0. Waiting for my mobo and ram to come in now.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
3,588
I made the switch. Athlon barton 2500+ to a C2D E6600! Sooo Happy! I couldn't stick with AMD anyway after they bought ATi. Nvidia 4 life!
:cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:
 

lodingi

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
2,199
I stayed with AMD. I went from a socket 754 to my current rig. I wasn't aware of the o/c ability of the C2D at the time. Also many were stating the next AMD chips would work on current AM2 mobos. I would say I made a bad move but I really like my current setup.
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
Also many were stating the next AMD chips would work on current AM2 mobos.

Yea, they do... but I wonder how many will buy them. It's taking an awful long time for AMD to get those quadcores for Am2 on the market. As we see in this thread, a lot of people have already traded in their Am2 systems for socket 775. And by the time Phenom comes to Am2, Penryn will be there aswell. I think AMD will have to come up with some VERY sharp pricing to make Phenom attractive enough. Not easy when you're competing with 65 nm against 45 nm.
 

Justintoxicated

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 10, 2002
Messages
14,495
I'm staying with my Opty 165, because gaming really doesn't need a C2D yet.

165 still here too. 2700x2 isn't all that slow IMO I don;'t need to upgrade teh CPU and my DDR is faster than some DDR2. DDR3 is out now great theres a 3 in teh name it must be much faster. Long Live 939 lol. I Think I would be much better off purchasing a new video card. All the new MB's don't seem to have enough PCI slots..
 

The Null

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
500
here is my hypothesis:

when C2D was released, every1 moved from AMD to Intel. i bet that once AMD releases a CPU that crushes the C2D, all of the people that moved from AMD to intel, will once again, move back from Intel to AMD, and so and, and so forth, until the end of time or Intel/AMD.
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
here is my hypothesis:

when C2D was released, every1 moved from AMD to Intel. i bet that once AMD releases a CPU that crushes the C2D, all of the people that moved from AMD to intel, will once again, move back from Intel to AMD, and so and, and so forth, until the end of time or Intel/AMD.

Sure, but the question today is... will AMD ever release a CPU that crushes the C2D, or whatever Intel has on offer?
I think it's safe to say by now that Phenom isn't going to be that CPU. It will have to compete on price/performance, but it won't be the bombshell that C2D was, pretty much degrading even AMD's most high-end CPUs to sub-$200 bargains.
Not even AMD's Athlon64 and FX were THAT good, even though they gave Intel lots of problems with their aging Pentium 4 architecture.
 

octoberasian

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
4,082
still on the old trusty AXP waiting on phenom x4

Oh good, I'm not the only one still using an Athlon XP. XD

I'm waiting for the Phenom X4 as well before I make the switch.

My future system is the following:
- Phenom X4
- 790X chipset
- R700 GPU (or 670 depending on performance/features)
 

Droc

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
3,360
Oh good, I'm not the only one still using an Athlon XP. XD

I'm waiting for the Phenom X4 as well before I make the switch.

My future system is the following:
- Phenom X4
- 790X chipset
- R700 GPU (or 670 depending on performance/features)

pig.jpg

Sorry.
 

vista_blista

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
480
Sure, but the question today is... will AMD ever release a CPU that crushes the C2D, or whatever Intel has on offer?
I think it's safe to say by now that Phenom isn't going to be that CPU.

Do you have a crystal ball that can look into the future? You do realize that the platform is just as important as the chip, right? We've seen neither. And comparing server chips to desktop chips doesn't cut it. We need to wait a month more to get the facts. Apparently, according to the person posting above me, that should be when pigs fly. I hope he likes bacon.
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
Do you have a crystal ball that can look into the future?

Nope, but I've seen enough of their production server chips and pre-production desktop chips to know they should be happy if they would just get even with Intel's Penryn in terms of performance.
In no way will they get a 20+% lead over Intel like Intel did when the first Core2's arrived on the scene. That would require an outright miracle. Something along the lines of their silicon clocking to 3.6-4 GHz rather than the 2.8-3 GHz they're now aiming at. It's just not going to happen.
Which means AMD will end up with a chip that's about as fast as Intels, but much more expensive to make.
 

vista_blista

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
480
No where in the real world does even twenty-five percent of anything equal an overpowering or decisive crush. To me crush is such a silly term, and probably misrepresented.

In terms of everyday computing, I bet very few would know the difference between an X2 and C2D without benches, even with a 25% percent separation. Although, I definitely can see Phenom besting Penryn by 5-10%, and by far more in terms of power consumption. That's certainly not too unrealistic. Certainly there's room enough for the survival of two major cpu manufacturers, even with differing performance margins, under fair market competition.
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
No where in the real world does even twenty-five percent of anything equal an overpowering or decisive crush. To me crush is such a silly term, and probably misrepresented.

I think we can safely say that AMD pushed Intel out of the high-end market at the height of the Athlon X2, and Intel has pushed AMD out of the high-end market with Core2. That's what I consider 'crushing'.
In both cases, there really was no alternative if you wanted the fastest CPUs, the difference is just too large.
The main difference would be that AMD never actually 'crushed' Intel financially, while AMD has been making huge losses for every quarter that Core2 has been on the market.

In terms of everyday computing, I bet very few would know the difference between an X2 and C2D without benches, even with a 25% percent separation.

Probably true, but as this poll here shows, it doesn't matter. More than half the AMD-owners here have swapped to C2D.
Why? I think it's because nobody buys a brand new X2 and buys a brand new C2D the next day, or vice versa. Most of us will use a PC for a few years before they decide to upgrade, and then we want our money's worth, so we buy whatever gives us the best price/performance. A difference of 20-25% certainly can't be ignored in that respect.
I bought my E6600 for 300e at the time when a 6000+ cost about 700e. Back then it was obvious how much better the C2D was. AMD has since camouflaged most of it by dropping their prices to insanely low levels considering what the exact same CPUs cost a year ago.
What I'm saying is that AMD's Phenom won't be powerful enough to get back at Intel in such a way.

Although, I definitely can see Phenom besting Penryn by 5-10%, and by far more in terms of power consumption. That's certainly not too unrealistic.

I doubt it. Even if Phenom would be faster at release (which I doubt it will, because AMD will not have their 3 GHz parts ready at release time), Penryn will easily scale up in clockspeed on its 45 nm process, as it matures.
As for power consumption... I really think AMD doesn't stand a chance. Currently AMD can only compete with Intel in terms of performance per watt with their special energy-efficient models. When 45 nm enters the equation... Intel has a 55 watt mobile quadcore part on their roadmap. How could AMD ever beat that?

Certainly there's room enough for the survival of two major cpu manufacturers, even with differing performance margins, under fair market competition.

There is, but AMD isn't gearing up for a pricewar in the low-end and mid-end markets. AMD's native quadcores are expensive processors, meant to deliver a lot of performance. Their problem is that they won't deliver enough performance to demand a price premium. This makes AMD's survival very tough. Intel can get the same performance out of CPUs that are much cheaper to manufacture (multi-die CPUs are pure genius in terms of yields/production cost, and they already have 45 nm in full production to top it off). Market competition isn't always fair. Whoever puts their technology to the best use, wins.
 

JD03Cobra

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
392
I've been building PC's with AMD's for 9 years. Never thought I would do it but I did. Recently bought a Q6600. I'm waiting (praying) AMD returns to the game with a Bad Ass chip and when then do I'm back.
 

Tazman2

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 17, 2000
Messages
4,968
I've been building PC's with AMD's for 9 years. Never thought I would do it but I did. Recently bought a Q6600. I'm waiting (praying) AMD returns to the game with a Bad Ass chip and when then do I'm back.

Same... i've been AMD since the k6-2 days after my silly celeron e566 (or wtf it was called) sucked hardcore. :p
 

fri2219

Weaksauce
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
98
I've used processors from DEC, Sun, or Motorola/IBM/FreeScale for 20+ years-

The C2D series was the first time I've ever built something with an Intel CPU.
 

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
17,480
I switched back to Intel finally with a C2D E6400@3.4Ghz.

My previous system was an XP-m 2400+@2.5Ghz. However, the DFI Lanparty I was using died and I couldn't afford to replace the motherboard. I ended up using a PIII 800 for a while and then borrowed a Compaq Sempron 3000+ (socket A) system from someone and popped my 9600XT, 512meg of RAM and hard drives into that system and used it until I got my C2D.

Let's just say it was a nice speed boost from either the crappy Compaq or my old XP-m 2400+.

It would have been cheaper for me to go with an X2 system and I had wanted one for a long time but could not afford it or the regular A64. However, the overclockability of the C2D's along with their kickass media encoding performance persuaded me to go with that platform. I've had the system since the end of December 2006 but still haven't gotten around to a quarter of the encoding I still have planned to do. However, it has been very speedy for what I have done. Plus it absolutely rapes everything in F@H performance with the SMP Linux client.

The last new Intel system I had built was a Celeron 300. Everything after that was AMD. At the time I built my T-Bird 900 system it was a hell of a lot cheaper than than a similar PIII setup.

Once I read an Anandtech article outlining the Netburst architecture and it's horrible inefficiencies I vowed not to touch Intel until they got rid of that architecture and came up with something much more efficient. The C2D satisfied all my requirements of my PC purchase at the time I got it.

If I had the money right now to build another new system, I would put together a Q6600 based system. I might be able to build a new system in the first quarter of next year and I'm not sure what I'll go with at that time. I may go AMD or I may go Intel depending on what fits my needs, uses and wallet better. The only requirement is the system will have to be quad core and hopefully with 4 gig of RAM.

I stayed with AMD for years due to the price of the overall platform which was cheaper than Intel and the overall more efficient architecture trend AMD was pushing. During the heyday of the X2 processors, I would have purchased a system based on that if I had had the money at the time even though an Intel platform system based off a P4 would have been cheaper. AMD just had the better overall architecture at the time in my opinion but since the released of the Core2 line, things have changed.

 

orvil01

Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2003
Messages
978
k6-2 333 @ 400 ---> duron 900 --->duron 1.2 @1.4 ---> 2000+ @2.06ghz (that was a tbred b i believe was an amazing overclocker) ---> duron 1.8 at 2.3 ----> xp mobile 2600+ at 2.6ghz ---> current opteron 144 2.8ghz.

I dont consider myself a fanboy, but it always seems that amd stuff is cheaper than intel when i purchase. for similar performance. Plus i guess im just used to amd, products. Its been about over a year and a half since cpu/mb upgrade. maybe ill start reading up on intel.
 

Ranma_Sao

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
2,617
RIP Dual Athlon, Hello Q6600. I chose to switch to C2D due to the upgrade path, and the price per performance...
 

Mr. Bluntman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
6,626
I haven't owned an Intel box since the P3 days. I won't lie, it's tempting to switch, but when you factor in the price of a decent SLI motherboard the scale tips back into AMD's favor. Intel has better performance per clock ATM but for the relative performance you get (at stock) compared to AMD they still offer better value than the blue guys.
 

enginurd

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
21,825
I haven't owned an Intel box since the P3 days. I won't lie, it's tempting to switch, but when you factor in the price of a decent SLI motherboard the scale tips back into AMD's favor. Intel has better performance per clock ATM but for the relative performance you get (at stock) compared to AMD they still offer better value than the blue guys.

Not everybody needs an SLI board. SLI isn't even worth the trouble unless you need two of the highest end cards. Maybe pricing will change and therefore make SLI more worthwhile, but I doubt it.

If AMD didn't lower their prices, they'd be much worse off than they are now. They HAD to lower prices to compete, just as Intel did with their Pentium Ds when they couldn't compete, in terms of performance. The performance winners get to keep high prices while the losers must lower their prices in order to survive.

I think Dell and AMD could have helped each other much more if they had partnered up earlier. It took Apple and Intel playing footsy to make Dell finally pickup AMD... but by then it was too late.
 

The Null

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
500
Sure, but the question today is... will AMD ever release a CPU that crushes the C2D, or whatever Intel has on offer?

yes, technology is always moving forward, eventually, i don't know when, AMD will release something better.
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
yes, technology is always moving forward, eventually, i don't know when, AMD will release something better.

But Intel is also in the technology business, and is also moving forward.
Intel is most certainly moving forward faster than AMD.
They already have quadcores, they already have 45 nm technology.
AMD has some technical advantages over Intel, like the hypertransport links, an integrated memorycontroller and having a single-die quadcore...
The painful fact for AMD is that these advantages don't translate to better performance or cheaper processors or anything. In other words, they aren't an advantage to the customer.
Intel can already beat AMD without these technologies (okay, for servers with more than two sockets, the HTT links are still an advantage).

But Intel has already closed that gap now. They are working hard on Nehalem, which have everything that AMD has, and the first engineering samples can already boot Windows.
This means it will get only harder for AMD to compete. They don't have any trump cards left. So AMD has less than a year to invent some new trump cards for themselves. Which I don't see happening, because they have their hands full on just getting Phenom to market, and increasing clockspeeds, and eventually moving to 45 nm. AMD can't do the tick/tock like Intel does.
 

The Null

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
500
someday...in the very distant future...in another universe...but eventually, they will.
 

morfinx

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
1,105
But Intel is also in the technology business, and is also moving forward.
Intel is most certainly moving forward faster than AMD.
They already have quadcores, they already have 45 nm technology.
AMD has some technical advantages over Intel, like the hypertransport links, an integrated memorycontroller and having a single-die quadcore...
The painful fact for AMD is that these advantages don't translate to better performance or cheaper processors or anything. In other words, they aren't an advantage to the customer.
Intel can already beat AMD without these technologies (okay, for servers with more than two sockets, the HTT links are still an advantage).

But Intel has already closed that gap now. They are working hard on Nehalem, which have everything that AMD has, and the first engineering samples can already boot Windows.
This means it will get only harder for AMD to compete. They don't have any trump cards left. So AMD has less than a year to invent some new trump cards for themselves. Which I don't see happening, because they have their hands full on just getting Phenom to market, and increasing clockspeeds, and eventually moving to 45 nm. AMD can't do the tick/tock like Intel does.
Someone sounds a bit overzealous for the boys in blue :p

I can't speak for what the performance will be for Nehalem, but Bulldozer will be significantly faster than Barcelona, both in single thread and multi thread situations. 45nm is on track, as is Shanghai. Sandtiger follows shortly after. Bulldozer based Fusion processors are due for 2009.

In summary, I think you are selling AMD short ;)
 
Top