• 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.

Why did you chose Intel over AMD?

Why did you chose Intel over AMD?

  • Better overclocking

    Votes: 86 46.5%

  • Better motherboard/platform

    Votes: 42 22.7%

  • Brand preference

    Votes: 12 6.5%

  • other (please please list!)

    Votes: 45 24.3%
  • Total voters
    185
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

translatingthename

n00b
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
23
Hello,

I am doing research for a new build and thought I would come here to get some opinions. I could not help but notice that Intel's Quad-core processors are a lot more popular than AMD's, but I am not sure I understand exactly why.

Specifically, I was wondering about the Phenom X4 9850 BE processor (available on newegg here for $195). I looked around and it seems like the direct competition to this chip from Intel is the Q6600, which is about $190 on newegg.

To me it seems like the 9850 BE is about just as good if not a little better than the Q6600 in terms of specs and stock performance. I noticed through reading newegg reviews, however, that some people favor the Q6600 because it overclocks a lot better (9850 does not seem to overclock well at all really).

I also thought that maybe it could have something to do with the motherboard/platform being used. Then I researched different motherboards and it doesn't seem like the 790FX series (AM2+) is so bad...

So what do you guys think? I need some good advise and would like to know why you chose Intel's quad-core over the AMD Phenom X4 processors?

EDIT: lastly, if AMD's Phenom X4 processors are competitive with the Intel ones, then why might the Intel ones be selling so much more than the Phenom?

Thanks!
 
for me it was brand preference since i have all intels in my house and because i have the option to overclock in the future, which i guess is performance since intels do perform a little better than phenoms when compared to similar models.
 
It's that you get so much more value for you money with Intel, if you overclock. You wind up with a much more powerful processor.

(opinion zone)
I think the AMD's do have the better platform. However, this does not translate into real world performance in anything other than some multi socketed server markets. So what happens, is many users go for price / performance, and thus Q6600.

I will say that all the AMD systems I've built and / or used give the impression of smoothness and speed. It's hard to describe, so I won't try. :D It's very hard to argue with the raw performance numbers of a Core based Intel system.

Plus, there's always the thinking that they can put a 45nm chip in it at some point in the future (when the price goes down). With the AMD, can you do that? I'm honestly still not sure about that one, as I'm sure a lot of people are. Look at what happened from AM2 to AM2+.
(/opinion zone)
 
I went with the c2d because of the awesome performance for the price. I don't really care whose team I buy from, I just want what performs the best for the price. Simple as that.

I have found that usually one reigns supreme for a while then table gets turned around, and I go with the other guys. It's just a matter of when I am ready to build a new rig, and what's available at the time. Sometimes I wait for whats about to come out, and see if it is worth getting before I decide. It's a matter of logic for me.
 
I can't wait to refer this thread to a friend who went AMD over Intel with his budget build. I pushed hard for P35 + E2180, but noo ... :rolleyes:

That being said, OCing for me.
 
My Q6700 Quad blows the hell out of my Phenom 9600BE

I regret trying to go back AMD.
 
The same reason I chose AMD when socket 939 was king. I bought the fastest available computer I could afford when I decided to buy.
Next time around, I will do the same regardless of Blue or Green.
 
GORANKAR said:
The same reason I chose AMD when socket 939 was king. I bought the fastest available computer I could afford when I decided to buy.
Next time around, I will do the same regardless of Blue or Green.
Click to expand...

Yup. I had 2 939 builds and when it was time for me to rebuild my main computer AMD had just released their quad core CPU which was not a good alternative to the Q6600 I ended up buying. When I update in a few year, I'll see where things are at and pick accordingly.
 
I was an AMD loyalist for many years because their price/performance ratio just couldn't be beat... UNTIL I heard about the awesome overclocking of the Core line. I don't regret it a bit but I'd switch back to AMD just as fast if I was ready for a MB upgrade and they were the leader.

Just goes to show, once you overclock, you'll never go stock!
 
translatingthename said:
Hello,

I am doing research for a new build and thought I would come here to get some opinions. I could not help but notice that Intel's Quad-core processors are a lot more popular than AMD's, but I am not sure I understand exactly why.
Click to expand...
Well to start, I hate quad core hype. There not as useful as people think or say. I bet 80-90% of people who have quad cores, wouldn't even notice a difference if they had a fast dual core put in when they weren't looking.

To get to the point, Intel is simply a better platform and chip. They are faster and better chip, bottom line. You pay slightly more, but the Core 2 line is absolutely an amazing platform that AMD can't touch.
 
Wow thank you for the feedback everyone! This is very useful to me. Keep it coming!

What do you think the general reasons that most consumers in general would chose the Intel models over the competing AMD ones? (might not be the same reason you had?)

Thanks!!!! :D
 
translatingthename said:
What do you think the general reasons that most consumers in general would chose the Intel models over the competing AMD ones? (might not be the same reason you had?)
Click to expand...

The general consumer? Marketing. AMD has none to speak of, whereas Intel has a massive reputation. That's why AMD only barely cracked 50% market share even when they were wiping the floor with Intel a few years back. However, the fact remains that Intel CPUs are simply faster than AMD's competing offerings at the moment, especially in the dual-core space which is where most of the business is being done nowadays (AMD not releasing a dual-core Phenom variant is a huge mistake IMO, since the A64 X2s simply aren't fast enough to compete with C2Ds).
 
Better overclocking for mine. Well, better performance to be exact, but overclocking is part of it.

When I bought my E4400, the AMD alternative was the X2 5000+ BE, both can be overclocked to 3GHz relatively easily (mine does 3.3GHz on the stock HSF) but the C2D is 25% faster per clock, which made the decision easy in the end.
 
Other. I wanted a quad with a decent motherboard. For $312 I got a Q6600 and a DS3L which is a pretty good deal considering what you get. I could have bought the 9850BE for $235 at the time which overclocks less, runs hotter and uses more power and costs more than a faster, less power consuming Q6600. The choice was obvious!
 
Zero82z said:
The general consumer? Marketing. AMD has none to speak of, whereas Intel has a massive reputation. That's why AMD only barely cracked 50% market share even when they were wiping the floor with Intel a few years back. However, the fact remains that Intel CPUs are simply faster than AMD's competing offerings at the moment, especially in the dual-core space which is where most of the business is being done nowadays (AMD not releasing a dual-core Phenom variant is a huge mistake IMO, since the A64 X2s simply aren't fast enough to compete with C2Ds).
Click to expand...

uhh wow I can't believe I didn't even realize that. You are so right. AMD has like no commercials on TV but I see Intel stuff all the time. Good call.

I think it would be cool if AMD was able to release like a 3.6GHz dual-core phenom. That might be competitive, but it seems like the fastest any phenoms have ever gotten is like 3.2GHz or so overclocked (and that is rare).

Also, I was reading other places and I saw something about a TLB bug thing. It seems like this was not a very big problem but it got sort of blown out of proportion by the media and cast a negative light on Phenom when it first came out. Do you think this has something to do with it?
 
n3g471v3 d3c1b3l said:
I went with the c2d because of the awesome performance for the price. I don't really care whose team I buy from, I just want what performs the best for the price. Simple as that.

I have found that usually one reigns supreme for a while then table gets turned around, and I go with the other guys. It's just a matter of when I am ready to build a new rig, and what's available at the time. Sometimes I wait for whats about to come out, and see if it is worth getting before I decide. It's a matter of logic for me.
Click to expand...

GORANKAR said:
The same reason I chose AMD when socket 939 was king. I bought the fastest available computer I could afford when I decided to buy.
Next time around, I will do the same regardless of Blue or Green.
Click to expand...

vortican said:
I was an AMD loyalist for many years because their price/performance ratio just couldn't be beat... UNTIL I heard about the awesome overclocking of the Core line. I don't regret it a bit but I'd switch back to AMD just as fast if I was ready for a MB upgrade and they were the leader.
Click to expand...

Exactly the same reasons why I went Intel: It's where the performance is. The additional overclocking capability is a huge plus. I don't care whether it's AMD, Intel, ATI, or Nvidia. If it provides the most performance for the money, then I'll buy it.
 
A. Better overclocking
B. Better motherboard/platform
C. Brand preference
D. other (please please list!)

A + B
 
@bigdogchris, you seem to have hate quad core a lot, the quad is not as useless as you think, maybe useless to you, but it really helps out with people rendering animations, working with multimedia stuff.
 
translatingthename said:
Also, I was reading other places and I saw something about a TLB bug thing. It seems like this was not a very big problem but it got sort of blown out of proportion by the media and cast a negative light on Phenom when it first came out. Do you think this has something to do with it?
Click to expand...

Considering the vast majority of people have never heard of the TLB erratum, I doubt it had too significant an effect, especially since the problem is fixed in the xx50 variants. Phenom is just an inferior processor, and that's why it's doing poorly. The only way AMD can effectively compete considering their marketing inferiority is by putting out faster products, but they just aren't doing that right now. Until they do, they'll just keep sinking. If it weren't for ATI's video cards and chipsets, AMD would be in an even worse position right now.
Danny Bui said:
Exactly the same reasons why I went Intel: It's where the performance is. The additional overclocking capability is a huge plus. I don't care whether it's AMD, Intel, ATI, or Nvidia. If it provides the most performance for the money, then I'll buy it.
Click to expand...

QFT. Brand loyalty is a silly concept when the brands themselves don't give a crap about you anyway. I advocate whatever happens to be faster at any given time, simple as that.
 
i did it because if i didn't everyone on [H] would stone me :(. but i don't know why there's this allure to amd since this is my first build in my sig. i don't know, its like the dark side calls to me
 
Shadowthor said:
@bigdogchris, you seem to have hate quad core a lot, the quad is not as useless as you think, maybe useless to you, but it really helps out with people rendering animations, working with multimedia stuff.
Click to expand...
He seems to live by the assumption that people buy systems for one purpose. I play games on my main system, and the specs of it are at least close to a typical gaming system, but I do a lot more with it than that. :D

But then again I always get a chuckle out of someone who calls a computer a "rig." Computers are as much of a "rig" as a stack of legos are. You buy it and plug it together.
 
1) Intel CPU dominates the medium and high range markets.
2) The Intel motherboards are better than AMD.
What more do you want?

IMO, AMD only makes sense for the low-end market.
 
Uhh... all the cool guys were doing it?

lol,jk I went with Intel because at the time the Core 2 Duos came out i was going to build a new system, so i picked up a cheap Core 2 Duo CPU(E4400) and i still have it today. But i plan to switch CPUs when ever i get a job and some cash.:)
 
For the low end market, the Athlon X2 64 is still an excellent choice. Pair it with the 780G and you have a good budget PC. Also, the Phenom is a good choice for the price if you are not overclocking and need quad cores. However, if you want to overclock or want a high end system, it's Intel.
 
When I bought my E6400 i felt it gave me the best bang for the buck. ( was my first intel build )
 
Intel was better at the time I upgraded... better OCing, better performance per watt... I still have 2 Socket A systems back when AMD was king ;)
 
One simple reason: Better price/performance/value for my purposes at the time of my purchase. I think if everyone followed that logic 90% of stupid phanboi warz could be avoided...
 
Power consumption. Efficiency. The same reason I chose AMD for second rig in sig, and a low-end rig I was building for someone.

The 4850e's are pretty amazing.
 
Was an AMD fan till i read about the first C2Ds overclocking like mad for anybody, running cool, and using less power compared to old Intels i had to try one. My 939 went to the kids and my e6400 went to 3.2 ghz. These have been the most troublefree cpus i have ever had, and no pins to bend.
 
mx500torid said:
Was an AMD fan till i read about the first C2Ds overclocking like mad for anybody, running cool, and using less power compared to old Intels i had to try one. My 939 went to the kids and my e6400 went to 3.2 ghz. These have been the most troublefree cpus i have ever had, and no pins to bend.
Click to expand...

Except there's now pins to bend on the motherboard, and fixing it yourself is no longer an option.

I'd take the old design, personally.
 
Yeah I went with Intel this round, but I could just as easily go back to AMD. The failure of Phenom gave me a massive reality check, and broke me away from being an AMD fanboy. Then again, I've been pure DFI for quite a while, oh well :D
 
Im not a loyalist either way but i had AMDs from the K6-2 all the way till the 2600+. When I got my Pentium 2.4C and clocked it at 3.4 with air cooling I was sold. The OC situation is only getting better with Intel. I was going to say AMDs are finicky and only function right with exactly the Right RAM, but now that I have a 790i i cant make that point. In my opinion the golden age of AMD is over. Ever since the 2600+(2003?) they have made baby steps in performance, while intel has advanced leaps and bounds. The insane Overclocks are a serious consideration too.
 
do you reckon that AMD or Intel might be better for certain applications over others? Like maybe HTPC or like encoding/productivity or something?
 
I chose Intel because there is no way in hell I want a NVIDIA chipset mobo.

Intel CPU + Intel chipset = stability win.

So I would have to say B...closely followed by A.
 
Does anyone remember how long it took amd to make a Phenom close to as fast as an old q6600 (1 1/2 years old).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top