Why did you choose Intel?

T

Tofu Drift

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
145
There are a plethora of reasons why AMD64 is considered a better buy by many in this generation of competition. What are the reasons why you chose Intel?

- My uncle works in IT, he just bought a new Intel 3.0 and partly convinced me to do the same.
- My Thunderbird had to have its HSF replaced a few times--annoyed me and I felt it was time for a change.
- It wasn't that much more expensive than the A64 alternative.
- A good friend of mine in Computer Engineering tells me Intel processors are more "robust" than AMD--whatever he meant by that, it had an effect.
 
I chose intel because I spend most of my time on my computer not gaming. Intel just runs smoother in general environment. When I am doing a bunch of things at once, a nice P4 runs smoother. I gave up having the fastest gaming system I could have to get a machine that is overall better for me. I also think that an intel processor with an intel chipset is the most stable combination you can get. I really wish that AMD would make chipsets also, but they don't. In my personal experiance SiS and VIA chipsets have just sucked. I guess being burned in the past makes me less willing to make the jump. Finally, I am just very familiar with intel products. Throw out any chipset number or name, socket type, whatever I know what it is, I don't even know what AMD chip runs in what socket.

Basically I choose intel because they have never let me down in the past, and hopefully once they get past this Prescott slump, they will regain their crown. (and I can finally upgrade from my 3.0ghz Northwood) I've been using Intel chips since '95 and I don't just jump ship when they have a little trouble. As speed differences between intel and amd will have to widen even further for me to consider dumping the brand that has treated me so well for all these years.
 
I chose Intel because it was the cheaper choice. Seriously.

With a couple of upgrades, hot deals from Dell make great computers. If I could get similar deals on AMD processors/motherboards, I would probably buy those. It doesn't really matter to me one way or another. My criteria for buying a computer, in order of importance:

1. must be cheap... retail/mail order component prices = NO
2. must be relatively fast
3. must be quiet

I'm pretty much sick of building computers. It was a long time: 1989 - 2004, RIP.
 
started with an intel based system, have since upgraded in small doses, so getting away from intel hasn't been possible. Just the same, no regrets. Gotta a P4 3.2e; Abit IS7, and a gig of corsair DDR400. How could i be unhappy?
 
yea it's fun, but at some point a comp just becomes a thing....

I agree with that sticking with the northwood comment. I'm stretching this 2.4C to 3.4 to make me feel up to date. I set up an a64 comp for my little bro because basically all he does is game, but 75-80% of the time I spend on the comp isn't gaming. That and the blue dudes are way cooler than amd's lack of any guy. :cool:
 
I have a 3.2C northwood.

Looking at the prescotts, even the new ones, I really am clueless to why Intel dropped Northwood for prescott. At best, the prescotts have offered 400mhz speed increase while going off the scale in temperature; 400mhz simply is not worth it, and I think intel prematurely canned the northwood. I know Intel needs to push forward, but nothing they have put out thus far has distanced themselves from the northwood much. Perhaps the upcoming Pentium 640 line will change that, but still, one must wonder if the same could have been done with Northwood.

I picked Intel over AMD for stability plus I do a lot of media encoding. I don't think Intel's current line is satisfactory, however.
 
my 3.2e is running 48 idle. Up from 39 on my 2.2 northwood. the extra 9 degrees means nothing to me. Not like i'm sitting with my hand pressed against it. Just because the current counter offerings from AMD are better, doesn't mean the Prescotts are bad chips. this thing absolutely flies, and cost me all of $210 shipped (retail.) i'm a happy guy.
 
Revenue measured in exponents- not mere dollars.Pround supporter of big business.
 
Overall I'd say that Intel procs are smoother for day to day tasks. Net browsing, the occasional game, Photoshop-ing, you know.
 
I chose an Intel (P4 540 socket T) because I work there... :D

Oh, and I've had plenty of trouble with my Athlon Slot A 950Mhz paired with an Asus mainboard.
 
I keep telling people "idle temps mean nothing". Tell me about load temps in the northwood/prescott discussion.

As far as why i picked intel? When I originally chose the i875 platform, i had an unlimited budget, intel's roadmap guaranteed me a long time on the same mobo, and intel's top of the line performance was still better than AMDs.

times have changd, but I've gotten a long time out of this mobo and the i875 platform and I have absolutely no regrets.

Now it's seems the opposite. AMD has the better platform (in terms of being able to stay on one mobo)
 
why do I have a prescott? Because of the retail edge program. My wife has an AMD64 because of the retail edge program too. Only good thing that came out of my wife working at compusa.
 
I chose Intel because of HT. Im always running multiple processes, and it does make a difference.
 
honestly, the when i built this computer, i didnt really know a lot about intel, and amd, and the advantages of one over the other...soi went to fry's and they had a deal where i got a mobo and a 2.8ghz proc for $180....so thats why i chose intel....
 
oOo sam lee oOo said:
honestly, the when i built this computer, i didnt really know a lot about intel, and amd, and the advantages of one over the other...soi went to fry's and they had a deal where i got a mobo and a 2.8ghz proc for $180....so thats why i chose intel....
Click to expand...
Hey, sometimes, you just don't need a reason! ;)
 
At the time, I thought intel was easier to install, I like amd, I might build a comp with a amd cpu, but at the time I decided I wanted to build a computer, I went with something i could put together fast. So for me intel seemed like the choice. I'm not a fan of either company, cause it just a marketing farce anyways.
 
The Platform.

When I started the Via chipsets were ?? :eek: They might be better now so don't start a war over it.

I've never had any trouble with Intel chipsets.
 
Because Intel benchmarks better in video editing/ripping and I choose to avoid a repeat experience with Via drivers & because I not a HD gamer.

With anti-virus and anti-spyware running all the time HT is very important.
 
I got mine because the Northwood was far more stable and just better overall than anything AMD had out at the time (I.E the XP chip) cause i got mine about 6 - 9 months before the A64 came out and established itself. Compared to the northwood, the Barton just couldnt hold its own IMO (thats right IMO)
 
A well endowed P4 setup is still plenty fast.

I own all A64's but I can still see that a P4, if someone already owns it, or got a deal, is pretty good nonetheless.
 
Well I bought my motherboard CPU and a full version of Windows XP for $200. That's why I still have an Intel setup primarily.

But the main reason I still prefer Intel is the quality. Intel chipset based mainboards are still the most stable and easiest to work with. They also have the greatest range of compatibility out there. Intel's R&D budgets is more than some companies see in years of operation. 4.5 Billion annually according to Intel themselves.

I've never had a bad CPU out of the box, rarely seen them die either. I can't say the same for AMD I replace bad processors all the time and occasionally get bad ones out of the box. I work as a service technician and I work on alot of systems equipped with both. As far as processors go I see more Intel processor based machines and I replace more AMD processors than I do Intel's.

VIA 4 in 1 drivers suck from time to time and I've not always had the best time with NForce drivers either. SIS plain sucks and Intel drivers have NEVER given me a problem.

HT is nice and Intel systems just feel smoother to me. I know AMD's bench better, but the bottom line is a top end setup from either AMD or Intel is plenty fast. You'd be hard pressed to notice the differences in performance in anything other than a benchmark.

Overall my personal experiences with AMD based PC's hasn't been as good as my experience with Intel based ones. I work on ALOT of machines. So generally speaking I'm Intel biased. However I have owned AMD's myself and have considered doing it again. In fact at present I am considering it.

What's got me pissed off right now is the fact that there are no SLi based Pentium 4 boards. All the Xeon boards that have the technical capabilities for it don't have the SLi connector with them to do it. Plus I haven't found any way to obtain one. So right now I am considering an A8N-SLi and a Athlon 64 3500+ (maybe higher if cash allows) and a second 6800GT.

I know Gigabyte has a couple of Intel SLi compatible boards out. They've got two i915P based boards, one with DDR1 and one with DDR2. Two things bother me there, one is that I can't find those boards and Gigabyte as a brand is far from my first choice.

In short that's why I still use Intel. And why I am considering making the switch to AMD again.
 
I'm not a hater of either (Amd or Intel) and like both.
AMD:
AMD, has finally got it together after struggling for the longest time.
Their A64's and 939 cpu's are their top notch showcase offerings.
Their FX offering is just alittle rich for my blood and don't see the sense in spending that much money on any cpu, amd or intel.

Intel:
Intel, has always been notorious for raw stock power.
Intel has been fortunate enough to also design the own mobo chipsets as well.
Which has helped make them notorious for their rock solid stability.
I agree, intel shouldn't have never quit with the Northwood this was their flagship CPU and could have done so much more with it. But who am I?
Their newer Prescotts for the LGA 775 mobo are a better CPU and are much cooler than their predecessor. With the right HSF unit the prescott's are top notch, couldn't ask for a better intel cpu. The problem with all the reviews their emphasing the "heat" issue which is casting a very bad shadow over these cpu's. These puppies provide very smooth multitasking and oc nicely when paired with the right HSF and memory.

IT Technology:
Platforms and architechs are changing and moving forward.
When these new platforms and architechs are introduced their obviously going to be alittle on the exspensive side. I recall when sdram, DDR, faster video cards (older technology) was introduced, most didn't welcome it. Onced those architech's/platforms matured they proved to be useful improvements. The whole PCI-e, and SLI and etc. isn't any different.
IT technologhy is evolving and redefining itself again. Give it time, it will mature(improve)and get cheaper. Actually imo before long, mobo's with dual CPU's and dual video cards will become a standard even for home users. Were already seeing the dual video card platform and eventually this will bring about dual cpu boards with dual video cards. Personally, I can't wait for that platform. Gaming? Multitasking? Coding? These needs as well as other concerns won't be with that platform (mobo with dual cpu's and dual video cards). In other words, our needs are changing and broadening and technology must and will adjust accordingly as well.

Final thoughts:
Its no longer about what cpu is faster and etc, but is about what cpu or available platforms can meet my needs. Speed and stability aren't any longer concerns, both intel and amd easily provide both. Really, all the focus and attention should be on the mobo makers and manfuactures. Don't be drawn into the whole "benchmark" mentality either. Benchmarks are great for a reference point, but the difference in real life scenario's rarely can be noticed, if not at all. Thats just how improved and better quality CPU's are today from both camps. Imo, its no longer about who's better, amd or intel? Instead, its about what can they do for me? Then buy accordingly.
 
well, for me, its sort of like the concept of "Jeep for SUV".. it just seems more original than AMD. Granted, if you go for the absolute original brand with widespread processor sales, it would've been IBM or Mac CPUs. but Intel's been around making CPUs longer than AMD.
 
i got my intel beacuse i just love them. i think they run way smoother for internet and stuff. and even in games, you cant even see the difference if you went to a AMD cpu. well i do have a nice P4. but i dont care about benchmarks. i just think there a waste of time. if my games run good then im happy. and i am.
 
1000mhz overclock
Hyperthreading
Faster encoding
Intel chipset

im an intel guy, but i dont really care for the latest intel offerings and if i had to build a new system it would probobly be a s939 a64.
 
Papa-Ming said:
The Platform.

When I started the Via chipsets were ?? :eek: They might be better now so don't start a war over it.

I've never had any trouble with Intel chipsets.
Click to expand...
...my reasons exactly. My current system runs solid, smooth, and trouble free....:cool:

Regards - B.B.S.
 
I picked Intel for the simple reason is that I found it easier to build (at the time) and when I build again I will choose an intel motherboard for my latest build is rock solid using an Intel Motherboard. I'm not an overclocker or too much of a gamer, but if I was I would probably go AMD for that.

What makes me laugh is when someone brags that the computer is the Fastest, but with today's computer speeds does that really matter? I'm now looking for more stability and features in a CPU than raw speed, for I can always take a coffee break.
 
tranCendenZ said:
Looking at the prescotts, even the new ones, I really am clueless to why Intel dropped Northwood for prescott.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll try to answer that. First of all, the Prescott is a smaller chip, so it's cheaper to build (you get more chips from the same wafer size). Secondly, Prescott has 64 bit extensions. Thirdly, Prescott has SSE3 (which can improve HT performance, which seems to be Intel's trump card. It can also help a bit with 3d/audio/video encoding, another trump card).
While a lot of people looked at just the performance for the clockspeed, it seems that nobody realized that Prescotts at the same clockspeed were generally sold for less than Northwoods at that speed.

And obviously Northwood had to be canned eventually, because when Windows 64 comes out, Intel has to have 64 bit chips available on a large scale.

As for me... I haven't yet bought a P4 myself... I am probably going to upgrade sometime this month though, probably a 64 bit Dell P4.
I have various reasons for that... My brother and I both bought Athlons about 3 years ago (a Tbird 1400 and a Palomino 1800+). We both had quite a bit of trouble, because of buggy VIA chipsets, buggy drivers, overheating, noise etc. All of which was new to us, since we hadn't built an AMD system since the 486 age (ironically enough that AMD died of overheating, and was replaced with an Intel, which still runs today, overclocked).
We always used Intel CPUs and Intel chipsets, and never experienced heat problems or bugs or anything.
Anyway, we went through a few motherboards, coolers, PSUs and such, to get the stuff working properly... After some months of struggling, my brother gave up and just took the whole PC apart, and ordered a P4 2.4 GHz Northwood instead. Immediately his system worked just fine, no noise, no overheating, no driver problems, no nothing.
I wasn't that lucky, I couldn't afford to buy another system so soon. So he sold me his remaining Athlon parts for a song, and after some more trips to the store and a lot of nagging at their tech dept, I eventually managed to collect all the pieces I needed to get a stable Athlon system. Needless to say I was never happy with it. I am still using the system today (with the 1800+ CPU), and I actually have to underclock the CPU a bit, else it won't run stable, despite my 400W PSU, my Silverado cooler and my 3 80 mm casefans. I think the CPU won't last much longer.

So in short, the AMD experiment was a huge disaster. I'm sure it's a lot better these days, but not for me, thanks. I will gladly spend some extra cash on an Intel system, and be sure that I get the latest technology (DDR2 memory, NCQ support on SATA, HTT, SSE3 etc), and perfect stability.
I don't care about game performance. In fact, I am actually quite surprised with the fact that the Athlons are so much faster in games. I am a programmer myself, and with some of the optimizations I tried on the P4, I found out that you can get a tremendous amount of performance out of the chip. I wonder if most games are just not optimized for P4 at all, not using SSE2 (or not using it effectively), and perhaps not optimized properly for caching, so the memory latency of the P4 hits hard, compared to the low-latency integrated memory controller of the Athlon64 (the Athlon64 is basically quite efficient at running suboptimal code... old Pentium or P2/P3 code will run great, while the P4 is quite sensitive, and really requires its own code for maximum performance... which works great with eg video encoding, as we all know).

Anyway, the P4 seems to be the better CPU for me anyway, I just hope it will do great in 64 bit mode aswell.
 
I just recently purchased a laptop with a P4 3.6 560j. I went intel for their chipset this time around and PCI Express. I think the P4 would be the better solution for my laptop needs.
 
[BB] Rick James said:
I just recently purchased a laptop with a P4 3.6 560j. I went intel for their chipset this time around and PCI Express. I think the P4 would be the better solution for my laptop needs.
Click to expand...
wow, how hot does that thing get?
 
Chipset. I make my living with these things and I have zero patience for BS. However, Intel has made it harder in recent years though due to what I have to conclude are bad product decisions from a lesser senior management team than in the past. It's their game to lose.

Since 1989 I've built both AMD and Intel systems, but I only run Intel myself at this point.

oc
 
oddlycalm said:
Chipset. I make my living with these things and I have zero patience for BS. However, Intel has made it harder in recent years though due to what I have to conclude are bad product decisions from a lesser senior management team than in the past. It's their game to lose.

Since 1989 I've built both AMD and Intel systems, but I only run Intel myself at this point.

oc
Click to expand...

See I'd only run AMD for myself. I've had more problems out of the AMD based systems I've built for people than the Intels.
 
i chose intel because i knew more about them. i had a [email protected] mostly and @3.8 highest ever. i do agree with the intel chipsets being better than amd.. if only they made the 875 for amd!!!! :D you allways hear of extream overclocks out of intel, but not so much amd. HT made a bid diff in the decision between intel and amd. and as far as i have heard intels warranty is much better than amd. they will replace your proc with no questions ask. i have heard that amd makes a big fuss over rmaing a proc. (just what i heard dont know myself)

but here recently i have been selling off all of my intel stuff because i just wanted to try amd. im still lacking my psu but once i get it ill let you know which one i like better. i changed from a:
2.8c @ 3.5
abit ic7max3
gig of kingston hyperx pc4000
2 36 gig raptors in raid0
to:
3500+ 90nm s939
soltek slkt-800-pro
with same ram and hdd's

ill let you know of my results!!
 
simple, every AMD rig i've made has been completely unstable. :(

^^doesn't mean i wont go back for a secondary rig, it's just that I've had better luck with Intel.
 
Graphite said:
I'm not a hater of either (Amd or Intel) and like both.
AMD:
AMD, has finally got it together after struggling for the longest time.
Their A64's and 939 cpu's are their top notch showcase offerings.
Their FX offering is just alittle rich for my blood and don't see the sense in spending that much money on any cpu, amd or intel.

Intel:
Intel, has always been notorious for raw stock power.
Intel has been fortunate enough to also design the own mobo chipsets as well.
Which has helped make them notorious for their rock solid stability.
I agree, intel shouldn't have never quit with the Northwood this was their flagship CPU and could have done so much more with it. But who am I?
Their newer Prescotts for the LGA 775 mobo are a better CPU and are much cooler than their predecessor. With the right HSF unit the prescott's are top notch, couldn't ask for a better intel cpu. The problem with all the reviews their emphasing the "heat" issue which is casting a very bad shadow over these cpu's. These puppies provide very smooth multitasking and oc nicely when paired with the right HSF and memory.

IT Technology:
Platforms and architechs are changing and moving forward.
When these new platforms and architechs are introduced their obviously going to be alittle on the exspensive side. I recall when sdram, DDR, faster video cards (older technology) was introduced, most didn't welcome it. Onced those architech's/platforms matured they proved to be useful improvements. The whole PCI-e, and SLI and etc. isn't any different.
IT technologhy is evolving and redefining itself again. Give it time, it will mature(improve)and get cheaper. Actually imo before long, mobo's with dual CPU's and dual video cards will become a standard even for home users. Were already seeing the dual video card platform and eventually this will bring about dual cpu boards with dual video cards. Personally, I can't wait for that platform. Gaming? Multitasking? Coding? These needs as well as other concerns won't be with that platform (mobo with dual cpu's and dual video cards). In other words, our needs are changing and broadening and technology must and will adjust accordingly as well.

Final thoughts:
Its no longer about what cpu is faster and etc, but is about what cpu or available platforms can meet my needs. Speed and stability aren't any longer concerns, both intel and amd easily provide both. Really, all the focus and attention should be on the mobo makers and manfuactures. Don't be drawn into the whole "benchmark" mentality either. Benchmarks are great for a reference point, but the difference in real life scenario's rarely can be noticed, if not at all. Thats just how improved and better quality CPU's are today from both camps. Imo, its no longer about who's better, amd or intel? Instead, its about what can they do for me? Then buy accordingly.
Click to expand...


I fully concur. Excellent point bro.


Now, when are SLI mobo's coming out for P4s? From what I understand, nForce5 is an Intel chipset too...

...really, things will definately start to get interesting, in both the AMD and Intel side of things.
 
I choose an intel (520) P4 2.8GHz with HT because it was cheap.
512mb DDR2 ram, 80gb SATA hard drive, custome server case.

Got it for 363$ including shipping and taxes

The HT is a nice feature, especially when I run 2 folding@home clients on it for the [H]orde.
I would be hard pressed to find another single computer that could average 265-350 points per day.

If dell sold AMD, i would have most likely have went AMD.
 
[BB] Rick James said:
not sure i don't have it yet. It was just shipped/
Click to expand...

Just don't leave it in your lap. Personally aside from gaming notebooks I'd go with the Pentium M every time. The reason I'd choose the P4 for games is simple. You can get a unit with a better video card for less money. That's about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top