Why did you choose Intel?

Even the mighty Fx 64Bit CPU's from AMD still CHOP their way through Games & benchmarks.

If you want a Smooth & Stable Overclocked PC, buy an Intel Rig.
If you want to cuss at the jerks & system halts, buy an AMD Rig.

Just my opinion, seen both & only use Intel Canterwood OC'd to hell.
No spam back please, thanks!
 
I ended up with with three Intel systems. Celeron Emachine @ 400Mhz, Toshiba 2250 600Mhz Celeron, and one PII-400.

The only reason I have them Is because they are the sportiest comptuters I own. Im looking forward to a $700 A64 system, only for games or video editing.

Otherwise, I would have boughten a P4 system if I were doing other things. It was a matter of what I plan to use, and having a tight budget that squeaks. I loved my 500Mhz K7 that costed about 120$, I hate my dell PIII-1Ghz that costed $2500.

People I know go on and on about how much better A64s are. I have gone through and done my reasearch to conclude that is BS. $ per $, the EE and FX processors are too close in performace to call one superior to the other.
 
Kin Hell said:
Even the mighty Fx 64Bit CPU's from AMD still CHOP their way through Games & benchmarks.

If you want a Smooth & Stable Overclocked PC, buy an Intel Rig.
If you want to cuss at the jerks & system halts, buy an AMD Rig.

Just my opinion, seen both & only use Intel Canterwood OC'd to hell.
No spam back please, thanks!
Click to expand...

First flame-bait type post I've seen in this whole thread. I had a both an Athlon 64 and P4 of similar spec for like 6 months and neither chopped through any game or benchmark.

Of course you don't want any "spam back" when you post something like that. Only your opinion is credible, right?

B
 
I've ran both Intel and AMD rigs before. In my sig I'm running an Athlon64 based system. I love this system; it rocks. I've only owned 1 Intel based system (my 2nd is on it's way). I used to have a P4 2.8C chip. I had a Gigabyte 8KnXP I think with 1 gig of Corsair XMS Pro memory. I had that in a VapoChill system. I was running the 2.8GHz at 4.0GHz. System rocked out hard core. Ran games like no other. The mobo started dieing on it along with a stick of ram. So I upgraded to the Athlon64's. My current system can handle anything I throw at it. I'm very pleased with it's performance thus far.

Intel does seem to handle things smoother; but gaming wise my 3500 is doing very well.
 
Kin Hell said:
Even the mighty Fx 64Bit CPU's from AMD still CHOP their way through Games & benchmarks.

If you want a Smooth & Stable Overclocked PC, buy an Intel Rig.
If you want to cuss at the jerks & system halts, buy an AMD Rig.

Just my opinion, seen both & only use Intel Canterwood OC'd to hell.
No spam back please, thanks!
Click to expand...

My 2800 does fine through games, and so did my 2.4/400FSB Northwood. I guess you just have no idea what you're talking about, since A64's and P4's test pretty close in performance in games (and the A64 wins in most gaming benchmarks. jerks and halts right?)

I chose Intel when I did because it was much better than the Intel system I had before (Pentium 233 with MMX), and I didnt like the Athlon XP.
 
brentsg said:
First flame-bait type post I've seen in this whole thread. I had a both an Athlon 64 and P4 of similar spec for like 6 months and neither chopped through any game or benchmark.

Of course you don't want any "spam back" when you post something like that. Only your opinion is credible, right?

B
Click to expand...

Always ONE aint there!

rofl ffs!

There are AMD preferences & Intel Preferences and NO one has Flamed anyone!
Sorry that you think my post was Flame-bait but then thats your opinion & you are welcome to it.

I did actually say it was my opinion. You lot can sort it out at your own expense, but always remember that Opinions vary & everyone is entitled to their own. :cool:
 
brom42 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Basically what he said. Only I only game with my PC. The laptop at work is for work! (Also intel based)

One of my most relevant memories when this question is asked, was of an old THG video clip where they showed what happens when you remove the HSF from a CPU. The AMD literally blew up, while the Intel throttled down and lived to fight another day. Being an engineer myself, this just screams intelligent design. AMD screams something else. Nuff said. Although I wouldn't mind giving the FX-55 a bash. ;)
 
Thunder888 said:
Basically what he said. Only I only game with my PC. The laptop at work is for work! (Also intel based)

One of my most relevant memories when this question is asked, was of an old THG video clip where they showed what happens when you remove the HSF from a CPU. The AMD literally blew up, while the Intel throttled down and lived to fight another day. Being an engineer myself, this just screams intelligent design. AMD screams something else. Nuff said. Although I wouldn't mind giving the FX-55 a bash. ;)
Click to expand...

Nice post m8. Nice to know there are others that share the very same feelings!
 
I bought intel cause i knew nothing about AMD .. If i did some research I might have gone the AMD way ... because I don't do intensive multi-tasking with my pc ...

I've used intel pcs only through out my life thinkin' that AMD was the cheaper solution. I now think my next computer will be an AMD ... most probably a fx-57 when that comes out ... it's gonna have some new technology in it and most probably the best processor money can buy ...

It's gonna be this summer sometime or a little later and I just can't wait ... gonna start to save money for it and heavy duty cooling
 
I went Intel because at the time it was the best on the market and because the 2.4C was a badass overclocker!
 
I think working for Intel would be badass. Every Intel employee I've met really seems to like their job.
 
I always choose intel becouse I Like there chips
I dont like AMD

Everybody thinks AMD can compete with intel but they really cant. sure they have there amd64line out now which does somewhat better than the P4 chips. yes i do relize this

As for need for 64 bit chips there is none and this is why Intel hasent made them yet. well they have and have before AMD just not for the mainsteam market.

let me remind you 64 bit chips have been around since 1991 with os/2. no this is nothing new

As for Intel dual core chips it has been said many times that AMD cannot beat intel on this one. Intel just has superior enginerring and desighn, juest read old articles on slashdot or the inquirer if u dont belive me.




Now why i choose intel. To me I like netburst architecture and think its more effiecent.

1.They contibute to the future of technology
2. They put money back into the community, such as college sholorhips and grants. also huge donations to publics schools.
3. I feel they run games smoother
4. They push technology, unlike amd who just does chips, intel does almost everything and really sets standards for the future. Just look at there website and you will knwo what I mean.
5. I hate amds and would never use one, you coudlent pay me
 
unearth01 said:
As for Intel dual core chips it has been said many times that AMD cannot beat intel on this one. Intel just has superior enginerring and desighn, juest read old articles on slashdot or the inquirer if u dont belive me.
Click to expand...

Intel doesn't have superior design for their dual core chips, they are still using the old shared bus which will limit their bandwidth hungry cores. AMD have designed the K8 with dualcore in mind. And what about the new articles ? old articles contain old incorrect information (especially The Inquirer).

unearth01 said:
Now why i choose intel. To me I like netburst architecture and think its more effiecent.

1.They contibute to the future of technology
2. They put money back into the community, such as college sholorhips and grants. also huge donations to publics schools.
3. I feel they run games smoother
4. They push technology, unlike amd who just does chips, intel does almost everything and really sets standards for the future. Just look at there website and you will knwo what I mean.
5. I hate amds and would never use one, you coudlent pay me
Click to expand...

All benchmarks show that the netburst architecture is less effiecent then AMD's.
AMD does more then make chips, I suggest you do research before you start posting crap ;)



My only Intel system is a Pentium 60, I had chosen Intel at that time b/c I knew little about computers. But after the incident with the dividing bug, it left a bad taste in my mouth. I wont be buying any Intel systems in the near future :)
 
Peace of mind. Knowing that (save for the newer chipset) my platform has no hidden bugs or anything that would basically make me a beta tester (Via anyone? :rolleyes: )

And yes, I've only had Intel. I've had plenty of bad experiences with AMD chips from my job, and I just like Intel's direction.
 
unearth01 said:
As for need for 64 bit chips there is none and this is why Intel hasent made them yet. well they have and have before AMD just not for the mainsteam market.
Click to expand...

In fact, Intel had a 64 bit chip out for quite some time, namely the Itanium. Which is out of the performance range of anything AMD offers.
Intel wanted to replace x86 with Itanium, and was reluctant to implement x86-64. But AMD and the rest of the industry pretty much forced Intel to go x86-64 anyway.
There are ofcourse plenty of good reasons to abandon x86. The architecture is horribly outdated, and it would be far more efficient to start with a clean slate, rather than hauling over 25 years of legacy and bad design decisions with you.
Compared to other 64 bit chips, the Athlon64s and Opterons are still quite weak.
 
Thunder888 said:
One of my most relevant memories when this question is asked, was of an old THG video clip where they showed what happens when you remove the HSF from a CPU. The AMD literally blew up, while the Intel throttled down and lived to fight another day. Being an engineer myself, this just screams intelligent design. AMD screams something else. Nuff said. Although I wouldn't mind giving the FX-55 a bash. ;)
Click to expand...

It's a good thing your an engineer and not a lawyer if you think using four years old evidence is wise.
 
Intel's quality is second to none. But AMD is faster. Plain and simple. Yes there are things Intel processors are faster at, but those apps are getting fewer and fewer. Intel really needs to get back on track. The Dothan core could do that for them if they implimented it the right way.

As an example, my Trans-AM is faster than most factory cars, but is it Honda reliable? No. It isn't. Then again it doesn't need to be as it isn't my daily driver. But in quality it doesn't compete against Honda. Even though it's faster, better looking, handles better and stops in a shorter distance. In every "technical" way it is superior. Except one. That's reliability of the platform. F-Body doesn't compete with Honda on those terms.

Same as AMD doesn't compete with Intel on those terms. The Pentium 4 may run hot, but it doesn't mind doing so. Doesn't hurt anything. It's not like when the older Athlons and K6's used to run hot and die from it. When a Pentium 4 overheats it doesn't usually start a fire or melt plastic.

I'm sure on occasion they can, but as a service tech I've never seen it. I saw plenty of Athlon's melt the socket and catch fire.

AMD has since corrected such defficiencies. But if you read the article on processor errata that was posted here about a year ago, the situations where an AMD processor has the potential for lockup or crash vs. and Intel processor is pretty scary. I wish I had a link to it. I don't care what the benchmarks say, I replace more AMD processors in machines under warranty than I do Intel's, and I would NEVER trust an Opteron in a server over a Xeon.

This sounds like an AMD bash but it isn't. For my game computer speed with reasonable reliability is fine. That's why I am heavily looking twords AMD right now, Theres plenty of SLi boards to choose from with AMD and only one or two lousy ass Gigabyte boards for the Pentium 4 you can't even actually buy yet.

Bar none, if a crown were actually given to any manufacturer on the basis for performance, it would be AMD no question. I still think multi-tasking is smoother on an Intel and I still like the overall Intel platform better, but if you want game performance than AMD is the way to go. Period.
 
Simple. I chose Intel this round because I wanted to build a PCIe rig and Newegg was outta stock on NF4/939/PCIe boards at the time!
 
im a fan boy of neither, however i do bleed green.


The only way your going to see me with an intel rig is if the bang for the buck factor is better. Ive owned nothing but intel rigs up until about july 2003, when i went to the athlon xp chips. Ive been stuck with that as my primary rig since.

I always recomend intel to my friends and buisness clients, but to gamers and people who are on the edge like me, its green all the way.

Intel has a very solid tried and true design with the northwood. Prescott was a failure in my eyes because the pipeline was too long. Intel made the pipeline as long as they did to get better performance from the 4Ghz and up processors they were planning. However as it turns out they will never reach those speed with a retail package. Intel will be making the pipelines alot shorter on their next product, as they realized their mistake.

That being said, Prescott is a wonderful CPU. I know they overclock well, but not as good as I would have liked to see. Basicaly it boils down to bang for the buck for me. If a 2.8 Prescott system costs $400 and i can get it overclocked to 3.8Ghz, thats pretty sweet. If an athlon 64 rig costs 100$ more and will only hit 2.5Ghz giving it roughly the same performance... then so be it, i'll go intel.

The debate on which one multitasks better... I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME HARDCORE PROOF OF THAT. its debatable all day, but like i said, i bleed green but im not a fan boy.

Thanks!
 
Thunder888 said:
Basically what he said. Only I only game with my PC. The laptop at work is for work! (Also intel based)

One of my most relevant memories when this question is asked, was of an old THG video clip where they showed what happens when you remove the HSF from a CPU. The AMD literally blew up, while the Intel throttled down and lived to fight another day. Being an engineer myself, this just screams intelligent design. AMD screams something else. Nuff said. Although I wouldn't mind giving the FX-55 a bash. ;)
Click to expand...
Well, that's a long time ago. I remember I read that article. I am sure they've come a long way since then. To sum it up, A64's are for gaming and 64-bit bragging while P4's are for multitasking and ... your peace of mind, maybe?
 
unearth01 said:
I always choose intel becouse I Like there chips

Now why i choose intel. To me I like netburst architecture and think its more effiecent.

1.They contibute to the future of technology
2. They put money back into the community, such as college sholorhips and grants. also huge donations to publics schools.
3. I feel they run games smoother
4. They push technology, unlike amd who just does chips, intel does almost everything and really sets standards for the future. Just look at there website and you will knwo what I mean.
5. I hate amds and would never use one, you coudlent pay me
Click to expand...

Sounds like you cut and paste the better part of it from a netburst brochure. A64 is a better engineered proc than Prescott. Just be fair and ask this question - Why A64s possess the same amount of computing power but run much cooler? Peace...
 
My reasons are a bit simpler. At the time I built my P4 2.4C the only AMD chipset with dual channel support was the NForce 2 but it was limited to only 2 sticks in dual channel, not 4 like the 865/875 offerings. I also wanted Hyperthreading (I missed my Dual Celly rig for it's multitasking goodness), Onboard Gigabit NIC and the Intel ran cooler than the comparable AMD with the stock cooling on both. That pretty much cinched it for me.

In my defense (Before I'm flamed by the AMDers) I've looked at the NForce 4 chipset and have to admit that the only thing keeping me from planning an A64 in the future is Hyperthreading. *holds up hand* Don't start the whole "Hyperthreading is bunk" arguement, it feels smoother to me and it's MY money and choice. If AMD releases a dual-core A64 then I'll switch. I'm not fond of having a processor that I could cook on so the Prescott's out of the question.
 
800x600medium9um.jpg
[/IMG] I personally have no loyalty to Intel or AMD, I have been running 2.4c's since they came out,(best bang for the buck).I had intended to set up AMD system in late 04 but saw this ad in local Bargin Post, could not pass it up.Up to 220fsb on air now, i would say $300.00 is about what it is worth.With phase change these cpu come to life at 1.8 vcore i have seen.
 
No shit, I thought pins were bent or scorched mark on heat spreader or he was going to pull it out of his pocket with lint on it, or that 3 should of been a 8. nope legit unopened box.I met the guy to pick it up he handed it to me in a bag i felt like i was buying drugs i looked over my shoulder to see who was watching.I just douldn"t believe it was the real deal. I t took 2hrs. before i could cpuz it.Genuine Intel, little extreme edition on the badge.
 
I am wondering why that guy sold it so cheap...well, you are a LB no doubt....
 
I got mine cuz, well....I'm an idiot....
Well, thats not the full story...I really wanted to see how they compare to A64s and AXPs so out of morbid curiosity I built the one in the sig. It's hands down faster then my XP systems but in no way shape or form can it hope to even touch my A64 system. It OCed nice tho and while considerably warmer then the A64 I dont feel the need to have a fire extinguisher by my side in UT2K4 sessions(sp?). Yes It's slower then an A64(@2.7ghz) in almost EVERYTHING but at least I CAN say that without a hint of bias, I own both and can without a hint of !!!!!! say that the A64 is hands down faster. I'm looking to sell that system, but plan to keep the X800 XT, I could use it when I build a SFF A64 system.
 
ImLazZzy said:
I am wondering why that guy sold it so cheap...well, you are a LB no doubt....
Click to expand...
Story he told me was,his (apparently rich motherinlaw) got it for him when she heard him talking about getting new cpu.He said he needed money worse than cpu, It had been in add 3 weeks no call's i was the 1st.It looked like he was heading toward strip club when he left.(that add was in a mostly junk for sale paper)
 
Im an intel guy simply b/c when I started messing with computers they were top of the line. I've put Intels in every computer I've ever owned since, and they've never failed me. I'm sure AMD makes a fine product, but If if aint broke, dont fix it. Besides, a great man once said "Never go against the family."

the don.jpg
<--The Don
 
i'll admit right now, im stuck in b/w a DFI SLI-DR w/ A64 3000+ or an Abit AG8 w/ P4 640.



:confused: :(
 
i chose intel because for my enviroment of multitasking my P4C with HT ruled. And as soon as the Dual Core Extreme Edition comes out, I will get that as well
 
Had an a64 3500+ and A8N SLi for 3 days, nothing but problems after problems, stability problems, even with stock speeds, swapped all the hardware in an out... had enough of AMD for another few years and got an Intel setup knowing I would go home and have a Solid Stable pc for the next year or so until i upgrade

Gave up on overccloking, if i need to OC, i need to upgrade

Now running an Intel 915 chipset, 3.2 775lga cpu, zalman 92 mm copper cooler (7000cu model with the adapter bracket) temps are warm yes, within spec, and stable so what do i care.. pc is still silent.. an dmushkin rev 2 ddr @ cas 2-2-2

I run HL2 and CS:S @ 1280x1024 4x AA and 8x AF Max everything without a hiccup from the 6800 Ultra (not overclocked)

my only beef with intel now is the stock LGA 775 heatsink setup is stupid, i dont trust them 4 push in clips not to drop that noisy ass heatsink on my 6800 ultra sitting below it

AMD Makes a fine CPU its all the 3rd party boards that are the problem if you ask me
AMD is also great for benchmarks and maybe a few FPS in games, but the p4 is much fster in day to day desktop use, i dont care what benchmarks you use, the p4 just seems faster
 
More now than ever I have something else always running in the background, a firewall, a spyware scan, a ghost back up, a DVD rip or burn.

With HT even if one task sucks up one HT, the other is still free for me and taking it easy.

When Intel releases multi core and more apps multi thread, single thread CPUs will be game only PC's.
 
I sold my P4 2.8Ghz off for cash since I had a shuttle system with a P4 2.4c running at 3.2Ghz. I then sent my shuttle to my parents since their computer was destroyed in a fire. Now I am stuck with my AMD 3000XP and it's got plenty of quality ram and storage but runs like crap compared to my intel systems. I'm just waiting on some of the technology changes to smooth out and the dual core 64 bit chip coming from intel.
 
CanadaOwnsJoo said:
AMD Makes a fine CPU its all the 3rd party boards that are the problem if you ask me
AMD is also great for benchmarks and maybe a few FPS in games, but the p4 is much fster in day to day desktop use, i dont care what benchmarks you use, the p4 just seems faster
Click to expand...

the 3.2Ghz P4 in the rig I built for my friend feels very fast, although IMO my cpu seems just as fast for day to day use and gaming.....yet the P4 is rated almost twice as fast...Sure he can probably do very cpu intensive stuff alot faster, but to me, my cpu seems like the better deal, plus his is a prescott and idles at like 55*C..
 
FiNaL_MeTHoD said:
the 3.2Ghz P4 in the rig I built for my friend feels very fast, although IMO my cpu seems just as fast for day to day use and gaming.....yet the P4 is rated almost twice as fast...Sure he can probably do very cpu intensive stuff alot faster, but to me, my cpu seems like the better deal, plus his is a prescott and idles at like 55*C..
Click to expand...


43 Deg if you dont use the stock intel fan (and who uses a stock amd cooler)
 
Well he's not really an enthusiast, so the case only has the three crappy stock 80mm fans in it, plus he keeps it in a desk, and leaves it on constantly....italso has a 6800 in it. Yea, he's spoiled, his parents payed me to build it....Also, the board its on has a problem with the bios where it gets a wrong cpu temp reading, so I took off the awesome swiftech heatsink I had on there and put the stocker back on, currently its fux0red so I havent messed with it for a while, although I'll probably put the Swiftech back on...with a Tornado...that should keep it cool ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top