AMD vs. Intel: Have the tables turned?

[TripleRLtd]

Bottom line,.. (and again I am no cpu expert). I just want to be able to purchase something, put it together and have it work. My days of tinkering with stuff and having to do extra things to make something work right are in the past. I don't want to spend 5 hours putting together some cooling contraption just to make my processor run effectively. I have other things to do.

AMD users,.. you keep using your AMD's. Thats great. This idiot who doesn't know what he's doing will stick with Intel thank you very much.

YES! And no matter if you are a cpu expert: you have learned with experience.
What does one AMD fan say? techs:

For most of my customers I recommend AMD Athlon Xp for home use, Amd Athlon64 for high performance home users, esp. those likely to upgrade to Windows64. I recommend Intel p4 for business users and P4 HT for extreme gaming when cost is no object and there is no desire to upgrade to windows64.

Well, I do, too: and for good reason: RELIABILITY AND STABILITY!!!
Only one of my business customers chose AMD (against my recommendation) because of cost and what he read. Hey, you have to do what the customer wants...right?
And Spock:
THIS opinion is and has been researched by ME personnally!
Not saying I am the best ever, but I AM pretty good. And, when it comes to electronics, heat KILLS prematurely. Ever check out comparative temps?

[BOB IROC]

There was a time where intel was the only CPU maker on the block that could deliver a CPU to the Consumers. AMD was and still is the underdog and it wasn't until the release of the Athlon that AMD delivered a product that could compete with Chipzilla. Now finally, AMD has a extremely good server product that can compete with Intel as well with others such as Alpha and Sparc. AMD delivers a product that has an overall better value for the money. My athlon 1800+ is a great performer on every task I have thrown at it. Gaming, business, video, and music apps all run great. There will always be benchmarks that Intel beats AMD and benchmarks that AMD beats Intel.
My problem with Intel is that they have chips with a high megahertz rating that the average consumer translates into performance. The truth is that Intels pipline is 30 - 40% longer than AMD so it takes longer per clock to get stuff done. I think they did this on purpose because making the pipline longer allows the megahertz to be ramped up. This intern confuses the average joe consumer into thinking that a chip performs better. Being a network administrator, I feel that I have the training and knowledge of building, repairing, and working on computers for 16 years to make this assesment.
Now that AMD has an affordable 64bit solution, intel is forced to copy it and from what I have seen, they are doing a poor job at it. Intel released the Itanium which is insanely expensive and doesn't run everyday apps without emulation which slows the chip down. AMD has had more innovative additions to their processors in recent years and that allows them to release a 64bit chip that runs current 32bit apps natively and integrating the memory controller into the chip helps with some of the bottlenecks.
Part of the reason Intel is so successful is because it bullies companies and OEMs into buying their products. They offer lower prices and threaten to raise them if they choose AMD to be used in their computers or in their companies. I have first hand experience as I once worked for gateway and the offered AMD for a short while but Intel threatened to raise their prices unless the dropped AMD. I have read the letters that Intel sent to Gateway and spoken to many Gateway Executives that confirmed this. Intel has been sued recently by companies for doing this. If you buy any processor, purchase a good motherboard (and other components) because 9 times outta 10 it isnt the processor that is causing your computers problems. With companies like SUN, IBM, and Microsoft backing AMD64, AMD will do just fine. Just for the record I will put any AMD machine up against a comparable Intel machine anyday. Not only will it perform just as good (and better in some areas) it will cost me less.
Just in case anyone thinks I am idiot, here are my qualifications. I am an A+, Network +, CNA, and CCNA certified IT professional that manages a network for a HighSchool. I am in charge of 800+ compters, servers, and other technology equipment. We use dell computer so, our AMD line is limited to stuff I have built, but I choose AMD and so do most of my friends and co-workers. Have a good day!

[WebHead]

There was a time where intel was the only CPU maker on the block that could deliver a CPU to the Consumers. AMD was and still is the underdog and it wasn't until the release of the Athlon that AMD delivered a product that could compete with Chipzilla. Now finally, AMD has a extremely good server product that can compete with Intel as well with others such as Alpha and Sparc. AMD delivers a product that has an overall better value for the money. My athlon 1800+ is a great performer on every task I have thrown at it. Gaming, business, video, and music apps all run great. There will always be benchmarks that Intel beats AMD and benchmarks that AMD beats Intel.
My problem with Intel is that they have chips with a high megahertz rating that the average consumer translates into performance. The truth is that Intels pipline is 30 - 40% longer than AMD so it takes longer per clock to get stuff done. I think they did this on purpose because making the pipline longer allows the megahertz to be ramped up. This intern confuses the average joe consumer into thinking that a chip performs better. Being a network administrator, I feel that I have the training and knowledge of building, repairing, and working on computers for 16 years to make this assesment.
Now that AMD has an affordable 64bit solution, intel is forced to copy it and from what I have seen, they are doing a poor job at it. Intel released the Itanium which is insanely expensive and doesn't run everyday apps without emulation which slows the chip down. AMD has had more innovative additions to their processors in recent years and that allows them to release a 64bit chip that runs current 32bit apps natively and integrating the memory controller into the chip helps with some of the bottlenecks.
Part of the reason Intel is so successful is because it bullies companies and OEMs into buying their products. They offer lower prices and threaten to raise them if they choose AMD to be used in their computers or in their companies. I have first hand experience as I once worked for gateway and the offered AMD for a short while but Intel threatened to raise their prices unless the dropped AMD. I have read the letters that Intel sent to Gateway and spoken to many Gateway Executives that confirmed this. Intel has been sued recently by companies for doing this. If you buy any processor, purchase a good motherboard (and other components) because 9 times outta 10 it isnt the processor that is causing your computers problems. With companies like SUN, IBM, and Microsoft backing AMD64, AMD will do just fine. Just for the record I will put any AMD machine up against a comparable Intel machine anyday. Not only will it perform just as good (and better in some areas) it will cost me less.
Just in case anyone thinks I am idiot, here are my qualifications. I am an A+, Network +, CNA, and CCNA certified IT professional that manages a network for a HighSchool. I am in charge of 800+ compters, servers, and other technology equipment. We use dell computer so, our AMD line is limited to stuff I have built, but I choose AMD and so do most of my friends and co-workers. Have a good day!

I noticed (from your signature) that you use a P4 for video editing and the AMD for general home use. I just find it interesting that you seem to prefer AMD over Intel (based on what you wrote above),.. yet you've chosen to go with the Intel over the AMD for the high performance needs.

Your sig:

P4 3.06 w/HT, 1GB Ram, 40GB HDD for OS, 80 GB HDD for Data
ATI Radeon AIW 9700Pro, SB Audigy 2 Plat. Pioneer DVD-ROM, SONY DVD±RW
"Video Editing Machine"
and
AMD Athlon XP 1800+, 1GB Ram, 400GB's of HDD Space, GeForce 4 Ti 4600
SB Audigy Plat., DVD-ROM, 24X CD-RW
"Everyday Use and Data Storage"

[TechZ]

Many ppl havent realized there probably wont be a retail version of XP 64bit
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16919
Unless youre buying a brand pc your not gonna get xp64bit.

[BOB IROC]

I noticed (from your signature) that you use a P4 for video editing and the AMD for general home use. I just find it interesting that you seem to prefer AMD over Intel (based on what you wrote above),.. yet you've chosen to go with the Intel over the AMD for the high performance needs.

Your sig:

As I mentioned in my post, we use Dell machines at the school I work at and since Dell does not offer AMD I had no choice in the matter. It is a shame that a Company like Dell does not offer its consumers a choice in what processer that a person can use in their computers. I got an awesmome deal on a dell that I could not pass up. I also have a Dell laptop using a Centrino processor that was purchased for me by the school. I never said that Intel mad inferior products, I just said that I felt that AMD based machines offered a better value. I used to do all my work on the athlon machine, but it is a no brainer that a Pentium 4 with HT running at 3Ghz will outperform an athlon running at 1.5 ghz. After all it has twice the megahertz and some of the apps I use (premiere, photoshop, etc...) are multithreaded and can take advantage of the HT technology. Of course, it will be interesting when AMD releases their dual core processors next year. I plan to build an Athlon 64 or Opteron based machine once Microsoft decides to release Windows XP 64 to the public. Usually I build my machines, but Dell gave me a promo price for being a Dell certified technician.

[BOB IROC]

Many ppl havent realized there probably wont be a retail version of XP 64bit
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16919
Unless youre buying a brand pc your not gonna get xp64bit.

The truth is Microsoft is only releasing an OEM version of Windows XP 64 which means you can buy it with hardware when building a machine. Buy a processor or motherboard and you can buy the software which will consist of the CD only, but you can still get it. If you don't believe me ask microsoft yourself. I did, and that is what I was told. So if you build a machine or buy a product compatible with Windows XP 64, you can buy the software.

[techs]

The truth is Microsoft is only releasing an OEM version of Windows XP 64 which means you can buy it with hardware when building a machine. Buy a processor or motherboard and you can buy the software which will consist of the CD only, but you can still get it. If you don't believe me ask microsoft yourself. I did, and that is what I was told. So if you build a machine or buy a product compatible with Windows XP 64, you can buy the software.

That seems to be in dispute. Windows Media Player edition is oem but is not sold to the small shops as an oem OS. It is only sold to larger assemblers. What oem means to me is that I can buy a full Windows version that is about the same price as an upgrade version. I couldn't buy a Media player edition no matter how hard I try. If MS tries to go the large assembler route I think there would be an outcry and possibly a restraint of trade lawsuit.

Posted by Webhead

Bottom line,.. (and again I am no cpu expert). I just want to be able to purchase something, put it together and have it work. My days of tinkering with stuff and having to do extra things to make something work right are in the past. I don't want to spend 5 hours putting together some cooling contraption just to make my processor run effectively. I have other things to do

One of the things I have learned is I never buy the latest and greatest AMD chips as soon as their released. I always give them some time to work out the kinks for exactly the reasons you quote. I am not going to spend hours finding bios settings that make the machine run stably.

[ilovetheusers]

Just to throw fuel on the fire:

Prescotts 64bit extensions were reverse engineered from AMD64 per Maximum PC magazine.



Just to argue, I used to be in the "Intel = stability" camp and recently I've found it to be BS. The CPU (if working properly) is not the root of any issues I've seen. Bad RAM and crappy power supplies have lead me to believe that some other part was garbage.

Because I had a lousy PSU I thought my A-Bit board was the worst ever (kt7a-raid = still fast as hell and a great damned board) but I was dead wrong. Now all of the builds I do (I'm up to a dozen, lookout!) have every component as a quality component. Decent RAM (crucial, corsair), good case and PSU (antec) and decent motherboards (asus, a-bit, msi). I build with all AMD and none of the systems have any issues.

I have one P4 system and I love it too! But, I now wish was AMD because I could have upgraded for $100 less than what I have to pay because I'd like to go from 2.0ghz to 3.0 ghz. For the price of the new P4 chip I could buy an AMD XP 3000 AND a whole new motherboard to go with it to get me into the future and free up some slots used for other components (nic, firewire).

Anyway, I'm not touting either company but I hate to see anyone bash either as they are both excelent quality products that perform very well.

[Shalafi]

Anyway, I'm not touting either company but I hate to see anyone bash either as they are both excelent quality products that perform very well.

BOB IROC, Spock, ILoveTheUsers, and anyone else that is ovbviously not biased based purely on opinion and conjecture.. Kudos to you..

To everyone else, please realize that there are things in life called 'tools'. These wonderful little devices allow us to do many different things with the same piece of equipment. The key is to use the right tool for the job at hand. Someone decided to flame Mr. IROC a bit because he professes his liking for AMD, but uses a P4 for video editing. I think this is a pretty good idea since P4's excel at video and audio encoding and rendering (showing he knows what hes talking about IMHO). AMD products on the other hand are hands down much faster at 'common' tasks. Do some independant research and confirm this yourself.

As for the comment about the P4 3.0 beating the pants off the Athlon64 3000, pfft.. Look at more than just one set of benchmarks, and also realize that youre comparing a 32-bit CPU with a 64-bit CAPABLE CPU that is either running a 32-bit OS, or a BETA 64 bit one which is obviously going to be slower with all the debugging code in it. If you want to argue this point, wait until its at least an apples to apples comparison.

Oh, a link for those who were discussing the Windows XP64 for AMD - http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16919

Now, if you want to talk architecture, the AMD team has their stuff together incredibly well for once. Ive been an AMD fan for about 12 years, since I got my first AMD 486-dx40, and its nice to see such wonderful competition between the two chip companies. If AMD sucks so bad, please explain why Intel is scrambling to incorporate AMDs technology into its new line of chips.....

Reliability??? Its been said too many times already that it has NOTHING to do with AMD. Their CPUs are rock solid. The problem here is simple.. Alot of people buy AMD to get a CHEAP system. So what do they do..? They buy CHEAP parts, and put it together themselves in many cases. Do the same thing with an intel chip and youll get the same result. I know this from experience after being a manager of two different computer stores in the Portland OR area between 1994 and 2000 (am now a network admin and app developer). We cranked out 10,000+ boxes a year (many of which I built) and saw first-hand how cheap parts = 'basketball machine' (meaning it will go out the door and BOUNCE right back in). It doesnt matter what chip you use. Try putting crappy gas in a Ferarri - same concept...

Lastly.. All this 'my chip is better than your chip' is absolutely silly. They are both great, but as I said before, they both have their places where they excel. There are a GREAT many other factors that determine what chip is used where, and just like OS's (or a great many other products really), it often doesnt come down to which is superior, but many times it is political in nature, or it could be due to superior marketing... *coughs*

I personally prefer AMD, and when installed on quality hardware, is not only blazing fast, but absolutely rock-solid. My home machine thats 3 yrs old is an Athlon XP 1400 (about to be upgraded) and right now Im typing on my workhorse dual Athlon MP 2800 with 2 gig of DDR. Ive never had a machine I enjoyed more than this one. The dual SATA raptors on the Adaptec RAID card helps a bit too.

Take care all..

Shal

[techs]

Darn. I thought this would be flame war. Could it be the zealots have left the building and the techs are in charge?

[Thag]

Both companies put out outstanding products. As has been stated before in this thread, the determining factor in the reliability and stability of any system is the quality of the components surrounding the CPU. And, of course, the quality of the workmanship that went into putting the machine together.

Your Average Joe User couldn't care less about what brand of CPU is in his machine as long as he can get email, surf the web, write a letter, and play solitaire. The only people who care are geeks like us (ok - ME), and our opinions are typically swayed by two things:

1. Our experiences with various pieces of hardware.

2. What we plan on doing with the machine.

Your experiences are your own, so you'll have to make your own judgements there.

As for what you're going to do with the machine, there are a few basic facts.

First, The Intel chips, with their long pipeline and revved up clock speeds, are far stronger at things that require crunching large amounts of data thru a process - things like video editing (even though I prefer to use a Mac for this), simulations and modeling. Hyperthreading is great if you have a multi-threaded process, or software that specifically takes advantage of it, otherwise it can acutally hamper performance.

Next, the AMD chips, with their shorter pipelines and more work accomplished per clock cycle, is better for your "every day" processes (office apps, etc.)

Lastly, if you're into gaming, it really depends on which games you play (different ones are optimized for different CPU's) and how much you're willing to spend on a video card. Personally I'm into UT2004, so my Athlon XP 2800+ on a high quality MB with 1GB of high quality RAM makes me quite happy.

Bottom line, I like, and use, both company's products. Mostly I'm thankful to AMD for keeping Intel looking over their shoulder (ex. Intel's new x86-64 chips will actually use 64bit technology for which they had to buy licensing from AMD) and forcing price points down and performance points up.

[WebHead]

...Someone decided to flame Mr. IROC a bit because he professes his liking for AMD, but uses a P4 for video editing. I think this is a pretty good idea since P4's excel at video and audio encoding and rendering (showing he knows what hes talking about IMHO). AMD products on the other hand are hands down much faster at 'common' tasks. Do some independant research and confirm this yourself...

That "Someone" was me, and that was not a flame. It was a question and he answered it. So whats the problem?

Anyway,.. moving on past the superficial part of this,.. I agree that P4's excel at video and audio encoding and rendering. This is what I was explaining earlier and why I was wondering why he went with Intel over AMD for that. And yes I agree. I think he knows what he's talking about too. In fact, I had already stated that I AM an idiot and I don't know what I'm doing. I thought I had already made that point clear.

As far as research goes,.. for me personally, my research has come in the form of experience. (I could've sworn I explained all this earlier in anticipation of posts like the one I've quoted above). I've worked with both brands and based on my own personal experience I have had a much higher success rate with Intel products (why am I sitting here explaining myself still?) But then again,... I probably have had a higher success rate with Intel as opposed to AMD because again I am an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about (this is the third time I have clarified this point).

Now then,.. why am I writing all this? Because I feel that you made comments that are indirectly targeted to me and a couple others so I feel the need to respond on my own behalf.

I believe I have covered all bases here. Forgive me if I've missed anything. I wish I didn't have to type posts as if I were typing up a legal document or something.

[ClickHere2Surf.com]

What are the most common tasks you normally run on your AMD based PC?

Most web browsing, programming, watching TV/DVDs, recording TV and video playback.

OK maybe it has frozen a few times (very few) but always because of problems unrelated to the CPU, like when I had a AliMagik chipset (first pc i built, didnt know it was crap), it would freeze each time I started my ATI TV, the chipset wasnt compatible with my video card, other than that, when I updated by nvidia drivers for my motherboard it started giving me a BSOD each time I tried to go in the nvidia's network adapter settings.

Both of these were caused by other hardware (ali magik chipset) or horribly written drivers (nvidia).

[ClickHere2Surf.com]

That seems to be in dispute. Windows Media Player edition

I was wondering what you were talkjing about, I think you mean Windows Media Center edition.

[arch0nmyc0n]

I've been using AMD for quite a while now.. I build both types of systems regularly. I also play online games, I found with AMD+geforce4 loads faster in game than p4+anything... my nextdoor neighbour has a souped up p4 system... he went all out a few months back and got everything (32 bit tho)... it's obviously more "powerful" than my meager AMD 2000... but somehow I always load levels and areas faster than he does, we're even on the same ISP and thus the same node.... online game performance is all I care about... It could crash with office as long as my game runs smooth and loads quick... I agree with Techs... it's not effectively possible to compare them properly due to the different design... it's like comparing an SUV to a motorcycle...they have lots in common but... heh they're different