AMD or INTEL? That is the question.

V

vgk1nka1dx

Member
I was wondering what you have or what you might consider better (in your own opinion). I myself have a simple AMD Sempron 3300+. I have not had an Intel chip YET, but am willing to try one to see how it will do. This is meant to spark a little dibate so have fun with it.
 
C

casey

Member
I am an AMD guy. All 3 of my machines have them. I've had Intel cpu's with out any problems though. My friend runs the computer maintanance for a large bank and also prefers AMD. Casey
 
C

czwally

New Member
I have always preffered AMD over Intel, But this last laptop I bought has the Intel Centrino Core2 duo processor. and to tell you the truth, My last laptop with an AMD performed faster and didnt freeze up like :bowdown: this one does. It seemslike eveytime I open My explorer it freezes instantly and I have to ctrl alt del it to close it and start again. I really dont know if its defective or its just the intel processor. I know the next one I buy wil be AMD.
 
H

HT_Freak

Member
This will spark debate.. but.. the new Intel Core 2 Duo processors have been proven to run circles around the AMD X2 processors in most areas.

AMDs are also known to run hotter than Intel processors, thereby making them not a great choice for laptops.

Not to put down AMD as they make great processors and I have no issues with them either.
 
A

Ajax

Well-Known Member
Well Intel chips are confusing to say the leased. Why? Well it stems from the fact that you have about 25 different type and name brand MB with Socket 775 but each one can only take one type of Intel socket 775 chip. (ie centrino Pentium 4 Pentium 4 ht celeron Pentium D core2 and the list keeps growing.)

I like the fact that if I have a socket 754 AMD it fits all socket 754 MB's same with 939 and AM2...

So from a PC repair guy point of view I love AMD...

But from a gamers point Core 2 Quad dose kick butt...

AMD's Quad core is going to run on there new AM2 socket when it come out later this year and it looks to out do Intel by 50%...
 
Last edited:
A

ABC

Active Member
HT_Freak said:
This will spark debate.. but.. the new Intel Core 2 Duo processors have been proven to run circles around the AMD X2 processors in most areas.

AMDs are also known to run hotter than Intel processors, thereby making them not a great choice for laptops.

Not to put down AMD as they make great processors and I have no issues with them either.
Click to expand...

GEEZ ! I was always told that the Intel's ran hotter than the AMD's, now what is the real thruth here ?

I have had 3 PC's with Intel's this one unit here being Dual Core D820 and 2 AMD's and unless Intel improve a lot my next will be AMD again and thats a real easy decision.
 
RedFox 1

RedFox 1

Super Moderator
I believe both processors are very good, it all depends on what applications you are running. I prefer AMD for games and the newer Intel Duo for other applications. There are so many processors with different specifications it is hard to tell what is best for you. In most cases a good dual core processor with 1 gig of system Ram is enough, unless you are playing very system intensive games or using applications that are system hogs.
 
N

nedkelly

New Member
got both

I have been reading this with great interest as i have 2 pc"s on my desk , the old one is a pentium 4 and used for downloading and running the printer and scanner the new one is amd x2 and used for burning and games . Both are well suited for what they do , the amd is faster for burning and recording vinyl lp"s {X -fi sound card } . The coms use the same monitor, keyboard and mouse via a belkin switch and are hooked up to cable internet .
As to heat in either i havent had a problem as i have had extra fans in both but i am not a expert on core temp . So what i have found is both good but for different applications.
 
N

Nomadd

New Member
I've used both INTEL and AMD products over the years. I would have to say there is no clear cut one is better than the other.
I can say I've built quite a few high end servers, which are running in large educational and corporate environments using AMD processors.
AMD chips have proven to be highly stable and reliable where ever I've used them.
AMD chips are also the most cost effective (Bang for the buck.) high powered processors available in the current technology market.
 
ETP

ETP

Well-Known Member
got both also

My problem is that I am attempting a pure AMD64 build with XP 64 and driver/software support is spotty. Can't find a PCI modem to work but I have not given up yet on that. And over at CDFREAKS they said to get an external modem. Hard to do updates with no connectivity. Catch 22. LOL /// It is definately fast but that could be that I have not loaded it down with updates and Software/hardware yet. Very easy build and so far I like the product that AMD puts out. Still like both but the Gigabyte/AMD system is my new toy. LOL
 
Last edited:
G

GrimSqueaker

New Member
Intel for me please

I'm in the fortunate position of typing this on a machine with dual Intel quad core CPUs and it goes like nothing I've seen before. Fantastic.

From a technical perspective it is all down to the software you use and how it is written. If your software is not multi-threaded then you want an older single core CPU with lots of GHz. If you are lucky enough to have good software then dual and quad core is for you. Nero Vision is one piece of software that supports multi core CPU's, I've seen 7/8 of my cores at 100% when coding. A friend with an identical setup holds the record for setiathome on a single system.

Happy trails.
 
S

sigrun

Member
vgk1nka1dx said:
I was wondering what you have or what you might consider better (in your own opinion).
Click to expand...

Blind 'n brainless emotively driven brand allegiance aside, anyone who's been around IT for more than a proverbial 5 minutes will, or should, have realised, AMD vs Intel is neither a static nor simplistic "mine's better than yours" issue. AMD have had suffered triumph (Athlon intro) and disaster (K6-2) series, whilst Intel has suffered at worst from utter mediocrity, exacerbated in the public eye at times with the same emotive disadvantage of Microsoft in not being the underdog.

Generally, Intel CPUs and their accompanying chipsets are the more consistantly hardware and software compatible therefore considered reliably stable. AMD has had mixed results over the years in this regard, and suffered some truly woeful results in its partnership with incarnations of chipset implementations on its compatible motherboards. eg: VIA experiences and horror stories over the years all to readily come to mind.

The truth is that both brands CPUs perform well and are pretty good today, with each implementation offering its own advantageous characteristics in particular. For overall safe or best outcome of compatibility and stability, sometimes at the sacrifice of marginally lesser performance at any particular pricepoint, Intel still wins the "which to buy?" decision hands down.

I currently run multiple systems (home network) featuring both brands BTW including Athlon, Pentium & Celeron CPU based systems (no Semprons). I have run both brands either concurrently or consecutively for many years starting with my first AMD 486DX40 chipset back in about '92 or '93 (?) vs Intel's then 486DX33 when they both still used the same socket. I had both.

These days, I buy on price...versus performance. And that encompasses compatibility as well as the associated cost of primary supporting peripherals such as the mobo. As a rule, AMD mobos today are frequently more expensive, often negating any marginal price advantage in AMD's current CPU segmentation pricing.
 
ETP

ETP

Well-Known Member
sigrun said:
Blind 'n brainless emotively driven brand allegiance aside, anyone who's been around IT for more than a proverbial 5 minutes will, or should, have realised, AMD vs Intel is neither a static nor simplistic "mine's better than yours" issue. AMD have had suffered triumph (Athlon intro) and disaster (K6-2) series, whilst Intel has suffered at worst from utter mediocrity, exacerbated in the public eye at times with the same emotive disadvantage of Microsoft in not being the underdog.

Generally, Intel CPUs and their accompanying chipsets are the more consistantly hardware and software compatible therefore considered reliably stable. AMD has had mixed results over the years in this regard, and suffered some truly woeful results in its partnership with incarnations of chipset implementations on its compatible motherboards. eg: VIA experiences and horror stories over the years all to readily come to mind.

The truth is that both brands CPUs perform well and are pretty good today, with each implementation offering its own advantageous characteristics in particular. For overall safe or best outcome of compatibility and stability, sometimes at the sacrifice of marginally lesser performance at any particular pricepoint, Intel still wins the "which to buy?" decision hands down.

I currently run multiple systems (home network) featuring both brands BTW including Athlon, Pentium & Celeron CPU based systems (no Semprons). I have run both brands either concurrently or consecutively for many years starting with my first AMD 486DX40 chipset back in about '92 or '93 (?) vs Intel's then 486DX33 when they both still used the same socket. I had both.

These days, I buy on price...versus performance. And that encompasses compatibility as well as the associated cost of primary supporting peripherals such as the mobo. As a rule, AMD mobos today are frequently more expensive, often negating any marginal price advantage in AMD's current CPU segmentation pricing.
Click to expand...
Yep/ The price advantage is not there. But I just had to build one. LOL
 
A

aabbccdd

Well-Known Member
i have an AMD (per my sig) but the new Intel chips are kicking AMD butt right now. the E6600 is the best vaule out there with the 4MB cache and it a great OC(er)
 
Last edited:
N

naenyc

New Member
Though I've been only using AMD for years on many systems, and it is still the most bang for the buck, it seems that the Intel core Duo has something to offer.

- For some video applications the Intel is faster.

- For floating point Intel is faster.

- For heat dissipation, Intel is cooler

HOWEVER, the Opteron 165 for $154 is tough to beat.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103588

I purchased the 175 for around $180 and it overclocks like mad, just as the forums stated 3.0 Gig is not out of question, with 2.8 normal. Just be aware that you must have a very good motherboard that can get the FSB up to 300 because the multiplier can only go so high.

So, for my MythTV project this works just fine, but would consider an Intel in the future for the heat reduction. But even that gets confusing because Linux throttles back the processor to around 1000 when it is bored, which is almost always.
 
S

slamscaper945

Active Member
It's hard to pick a winner. I bought an OEM system based on the pentium D 820 dual-core back when Intel first released them. I was happy with the system and it seemed to perform well.

I kept hearing about the Athon X2's and how they were so much better, albeit costing much more. I witnessed the benchmarks that showed AMD cleaning house with their whole dual-core line. People talked about how AMD had a true dual-core architecture and that Intel just slapped two cores together on one die. In the end it was AMD's on-die memory controller that helped the X2's perform much better than the Pentium D's clock for clock. Netburst really never saw the performance it was capable of. The architecture was designed for wicked fast clock rates that were never possible because of overheating issues.

When I decided to build my next PC from scratch I wanted to base it on the X2. I was tired of regretting my Pentium D system. I wanted a gaming rig that could multi-task as well. I bought the X2 4800, which at the time was one of the best CPU's out. The only processors that were faster were the FX60 and the FX62, which were priced much, much higher. I bought my components piece by piece to keep from going broke and by the time I assembled my $2500 gaming rig Intel had released the Core2 aka Conroe.

Conroe brought a whole new architecture that was very efficient. The new core was leagues better than Netburst and even spanked all of AMD's current CPU's. Again, I felt bad and regretted my decision to go with AMD. Now, if I wanted to get a Core 2 I'd have to buy a new mobo and ram which would have been too costly. All in all I decided I was happy. The X2 is a very good performer even with Conroe out.

It just goes to show that you can't really go wrong either way. You can't expect to decide based on the current selection because as soon as you make the leap and drop the cash on a fast Intel CPU AMD will come out with a new one that will trounce it. Competition is good though. It drives down the prices for us and keeps both companies on their toes.
 
Bunnyrip2

Bunnyrip2

Well-Known Member
AMD! for now anyway.

AMD was the 1st to develop the on chip memory controller. I used to be an InTel guy, but once I started using AMD, I have never went back to InTel. Maybe that will change someday. But for now, AMD Rules! For ME.Definitely more "Bang for your buck"!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top