AMD or INTEL and why?

Which is better...AMD or INTEL and why??

Personally, I am an individual that believes strictly in AMD because of the quality and price. It also helps that I am a AMD authorized reseller too.

Reply with opinions!!!!

AMD is better for gaming purposes, but Intel's P4 are usually better on general apps. What did I buy? An AMD 1.4 :p

I perfer the Intel Chip.

I haven't seen the new P4 but these Athlon's are just hotter, not much better.

I don't think they have gotten any farther really in technology. They just cranked the juice up a bit more. Bigger heatsink? Bigger fan?

I guess they perform well but I think its time we see some new technology.

.JL.

DONT EVEN GO THERE :D

Nah ive used AMD since the first 386 I got.

AMD Has always been faster and cheaper. I have never had any problems with AMD. All my friends had problems with there Intels. I also used to test hardware and Intel cpus. Intel spu's have a very big problem if it is used with a non intel chipset.

Looking at benchmarks my 1.2 ATHLON was either equal or below a P4 1.7ghz

Hey,

AMD is just as good on applications.. maybe a pentium 4 has about like a 5% better performance thaN AMD on applications.. but are you willing to pay like double for Pentium 4 cuz of this 5% increase in performance?

I THINK NOT!!!

[quote]Originally posted by i3omberman28:
<strong>Hey,

AMD is just as good on applications.. maybe a pentium 4 has about like a 5% better performance thaN AMD on applications.. but are you willing to pay like double for Pentium 4 cuz of this 5% increase in performance?

I THINK NOT!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>

WERD UP!

[quote]Originally posted by i3omberman28:
<strong>Hey,

AMD is just as good on applications.. maybe a pentium 4 has about like a 5% better performance thaN AMD on applications... </strong><hr></blockquote>

Even that is debatable! I've yet to see any P4 outdo an AMD. Don't forget the Athlon line is in the P3 range while the Duron was intended as a Celeron equivalent.

But performance of the Athlon puts it in par with the P4 while the Duron is often used in comparison tests to the P3.

The CPU subsystem also influences the overall result, but as for design, price, and performance AMD rules.

I don't own and AMD CPU yet and have used Apple's Macs and PowerPCs, 486s, Pentiums, Pentium MMX, Pentium Pros, Pentium 2, Celerons and Pentium 3 in the past.

My next CPU *will* be produced by AMD.

[quote]Originally posted by Dante:
<strong>AMD is better for gaming purposes, but Intel's P4 are usually better on general apps. What did I buy? An AMD 1.4 :p </strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually all performance testing has proven the oposite, for programs optomized to use the P4 architecture they run great. Take for instance Quake 3, the P4 takes that hands down, on the other hand AMD's surpass the P4's in other games and even the Winstone business benchmarks.

I guess the point is this, if you're not running benchmarks you're not going to see a difference. Your AMD 1.4 is not going to put my Dual PentIII 1000mhz to shame ( I'm not picking on you just using this as an example)

I have also been using Pentiums since inception and the truth is I have never had a problem with them, heck I have a server at home that still uses dual Pent Pros without a hitch.
this is the veritable chevy versus ford argument.
I love AMD, I love my Pent's. right now the best bang for the buck are the AMD's. That could change all I can say is that as far as I am concerned I wish we had 3 more manufacturers out there truly competing with both AMD and intel cause I don't own stock in either of them, I'm just a consumer and I want a choice at a great price.

when people say AMD have always been faster that intel, that is a lie, IMO.

386 = true
486 = false
586/686 - mmx = false
686+mmx (K62 series) on par
duron vs pentium 2 = yeah i'll give u that
athlon vs pentium 3 = fair enough intel are getting sloppy.

My point is, 10 years ago, how many of u actually owned an amd chip, my first 386 wos an amd 386dx40 (my intel 386dx33 ran faster than the 40.

in the 486 dx2 series, i have seen ibm and cyrix chips beat amd, i currently run a dual pentium 2 333, a pentium 2 266 and an amd 350
my p2 266 with 128 runs faster than my 350 with 256 meg, anyhow, please dont take offense to this post and dont flame me, its only opservations that i have maid whilst being in the computer industry.

thans u all and have a good night :D

since I've been learning how a processor really truly works, I can honestly say I'm not sure what intel is smoking recently but they need to bust out some bad !@#ed chips soon.

I have nothing but intel chips, only because I can dual them w/o having to buy a $500 mobo, but even then i don't know if I would buy an AMD dual, mainly due to heating issues.

I am looking forward to buying a 1.26ghz p3 with 512k L2 and see how that lil puppy preforms...I think the extra L2 will come in handy...

I have done a extensive amount of research for standardizing CAD computers at my job, and have found that AMD processors excel beyond higher Mhz Intel CPU's, and for a fraction of the price. (I ran benchmarks to see the differences) The only standout between Intel and AMD is that of benchmarks pertaining to the P4 and Quake 3. Intel's P4 handles Quake 3 much better than AMD's CPU, but other than that, AMD all the way! (If I had my choice for a gaming system, I would be using AMD 100%, no doubt!)

Currently I have 2 computers that are both AMD processors....AMD Duron 800 & AMD Athlon 700. Love em both, never had problems and advise others to buy AMD machines. (But I must admit I use a Intel P3 450 for work :mad: )

Life is good! :D :D

[quote]Originally posted by Daemon:
<strong>DONT EVEN GO THERE :D
I have never had any problems with AMD. All my friends had problems with there Intels.
Looking at benchmarks my 1.2 ATHLON was either equal or below a P4 1.7ghz</strong><hr></blockquote>


Let's see, there was the problem due to limitations of the software algorithms with the 350 and above K62's. See: <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q192/8/41.ASP" target="_blank">Difficulties Using AMD K6-2 or Athlon </a> ; Microsoft took the blame, but never had a problem catering to Intel's PII's. There is the problem with fuzzy jpeg's, see: <a href="http://www.gordonfamily.com/AMD/" target="_blank">JPEG Display Problem </a> . Then there is the constant heat problem; to name only three known issues with AMD.

Let's be practical, if you know what you are doing, you can setup a PC with either chip and be satisfied with your own "Bench Mark". But facts are facts, AMD has had allot of headache problems when it comes to software support.

I always go with Intel because it tastes great, and is also less filling...

i refer u to this article (link) that was on the INTEL section ..........it makes very serious reading <a href="http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm" target="_blank">www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm</a> ....personally i DONT like AMD cpu,s because of the heat ,and other problems I was about to treat myself to a P4 ...but i think i,ll give it a miss ,as i,ve got a nice slot1 P111 (700) nearly 2 years old ,,running on an old abit bx board running at x100mz ...which is very happy (apart from scsi cards not regeresting) running at 933 ,,,,,,,,, I have built (only) 2 amd athlon 1g using asus/abit (cant remember now) k7 133 boards and both have had to be returned due to faulty CPU / boards .....(yes i did fit amd approved PSUs and VERY large HSFs).....to much agro/greaf .
yes athlons are quicker/cheaper .........but the OLD P111 (slot 1) are VERY reliable.

If u want to play games BUY yourself a playstation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What I forgot to mention about AMD was the advantage of using the nForce chipset when it comes out. I'm not against Intel at all. For servers, there is no way I'd go with AMD while Xeons have been doing a great job.

for the last year or so amd hands down.

but recently i got hold of one of the new PIII's using the .13 micron technology, it is amazing, until they do the same with the pIV's (drop the microns and and the extra 16 pins, late december) id defenalty recommend the PIII 1.11 GHZ or the PIII 1.2 GHz but these chips are pricy, if your concerned about price definalty go Athalon or the new duron 1gig. other then that i guess im pretty much split on this topic :p

I think it's all personal opinion! I would run either. I could build a killer system running either AMD or Intel. There is just one area that I will not go with AMD...SERVERS!

I wouldn't even think about installing a server unless it was either Compaq, HP, DELL, IBM, etc. Don't get me wrong..I used to "build" servers out of Asus & Intel mobo and such, but now my eyes have been opened and I realize that a server is a "specialized" system that NEEDS all the error checking, diag, and SNMP stuff loaded. I don't think that I have ever seen a 4 way AMD server, but you can go buy a 4 way Intel right now and it will rock!

JKS

<pre>


</pre>

<pre>

_ __ __ ____ _________
/ \ | \/ &#0124;&#0124; \ \:::::::/
/ - \ | &#0124;&#0124; |) | /| /:/
/_/-\_\|_|\/|_&#0124;&#0124;____/ |:|__ /:/
|::::/ \/

ADVANCE MICRO DEVICES, INC.

</pre>

A sure argument starter!
If you want a system that you can bolt together easily and not have to worry about go Intel.
If you like to futz around with fans and power supplies and compatibility problems go AMD and save a dollar or two.
I deal strictly in business machines and simply find AMD chips to be too fragile for mission critical apps.
Gamers and hobbyists seem to love AMD chips and there has to be a reason why all the low-end machines have them.
The argument I hear most is to choose AMD over Intel because Intel is just a big corporation trying to monopolize the market. Since when has AMD been a penny stock.
Sure I will get slammed for my opinion...but hey, you asked.

The way I see it is this:

Windows Users = Intel

Linux Users = AMD

And Linux/Windows Users = AMD

Daemon,

With the price of Intel processors and how much of a pain MS is starting to become, with XP and future products, I totally agree with you.

Dante,


Werd up! :)

while the p4 has some uses (very few i may add :D ) I would go with AMD for almost everything. Durons beat Celerons and are dirt cheap, Athlons are extremely fast and are moderately priced.

heres somthing from our friends AMD

<a href="http://www.amd.com/products/cpg/athlon/benchmarks/benchmarks.html" target="_blank">http://www.amd.com/products/cpg/athlon/benchmarks/benchmarks.html</a>

Nice!

Not only here but on many reviews over the net I found that when my 1.2 athlon came out it benched with a 1.7 and a 1.5, and it either wooped the 1.7 or came close. The 1.5 go smoked. Also AMD is now saying speed isnt everything. Thats why they havnt hit 2ghz yeat. Because there making there cpus faster were there at. AMD Athlon 1.4ghz smokes a 1.7ghz p4

Ford or Chevy? Maytag or GE? As others have said already, it's a personal choice. However, being one dude who's been burned big time by AMD, I'll never go back. I've never had a problem with Intel processors...never.

If AMD is so great, why do all questions/problems in the "BIOS/Motherboard Drivers" forum deal with AMD processors? You think I'm kidding? Go look for yourself. If you watch that forum, you see a trend.

If you like to tweak and play with a system, go with AMD. If you want it to work without a lot of problems, go with Intel.

Remember, opinions are like a$$holes...everybody has one... :D

AMD - cheaper

WOW - I guess i started a hugh one here....

Well if you want to spend more with less performance go with INTEL, if you want the max all speed kick a55 system go with AMD.


F O R D R U L E S !

Ive never ever ever had one problem with a AMD cpu. I just had my mothers 450 intel die 2 days ago and its only 3 years old. I still have a amd k6-2 450 and its running the same as the day I got it. When I used to test in the R&D department for ABS Computers, we found that intel chips would crash to much and would not work right under via chipsets. Nor ALI. AMD was fine on all of them. One thing about AMD i do agree is that it gets to hot. Another it takes alot more power than a intel chip. But I think the price and performance is worth it. I only trust AMD. Cant trust the WHITE MAN'S LIES!! Intel is the devel :)


The AMD forum only has How to overclock AMD CPU. Nothing big. And if there is a problem its casue they overclocked it to much :)

I use both, intel and amd, from celerons, to pIII's to durons and athlons...they both run great...I prefer amd's because they are cheaper and overclock well but I'd by intel any day of the week too if i can afford it. screw the benchmarks as long as it gets the job done well at an affordable price on a stable platform.
I just bought an athlon 900 and next week i'm picking up a new pIII750. the new technology is coming...just think gentleman and ladies IBM just finished testing the new SiGe transistors running at 210 GHZ at alot less power and they figure 100GHZ processors in the next 2 years so who cares about a few mhz here and there...i just can't wait to see whats coming

I think it's great that we have the competition! I remember, not that many years ago, that your choice was Intel (if you didn't want an Apple). I personally like AMD. But I do agree for server use Intel is the way to go.
Remember I'm a shade tree grunt who does this on the side (shingle in the garage). I only build an average of 1 syestem per month (½ the time for family :D ), so my experience is limited, but $ for $ AMD is the better deal.

Remember don't confuse a client with facts: there mind is already made up! :D

[quote]Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff:
[QB]Ford or Chevy? Maytag or GE? As others have said already, it's a personal choice. However, being one dude who's been burned big time by AMD, I'll never go back. I've never had a problem with Intel processors...never.QB]<hr></blockquote>

heh, bingo. In my 2+ years of tech work - I've only seen 3 cpus go -= pop =- all of which were AMDs. Now, in case you're wondering, no, the heatsink was on, but the fan failed (yes, right out of a retail box)

Now, you say ok, do that with an intel - heh, accidently, we did...we had rebuilt our 1.4ghz demo machine to a 1.8ghz...and forgot to plug the damn fan in...(wasn't me :p ). This went on for a 2 WEEKS before we opened it up again and realized it wasn't on....but the thing didn't pop, still runs fine today......thank god....

Anyway, to sum it up, I think its funny how everyone says - oh, intel sucks, they're going out of business, they're losing the market, their projections are way off, blah blah blah. - Guess what, intel hit their earnings DEAD ON even AFTER the price cuts, they still invented the technology and 1 last thing on this lil rant...AMD doesn't make all the stuff intel does (ever seen an AMD switch, hub, NIC etc?)


It really helps when you know someone who helped invent stuff at intel and know a few people who work there...if ya got a question, call 'em up and ask them :D

Whoa! I've been quoted. Cool... :D

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm everyone going on about how much the Athlons outperform the P3's & P4's etc, but nobody has mentioned the Tualatin yet which is outperfoming Athlons of Equivalent speed in non-optimised tests on a lot of independant website reviews.

You cannot go by benchmarks posted on the actual manufacturers sites as all chip manufacturers will obviously use the benchmarking software that favours their particular CPU's. If an Athlon was benchmarked using exclusively SSE2 extentions and not 3D Now! then obviously it would not perform as it could do on non-optimised software for obvious reasons.

I am currently running a Athlon Thunderbird, but will be buying a complete new system in the very near future and I am seriously considering a P4 (microPGA version) over the Athlon for future software releases that will make use of SSE2. Unless AMD include SSE2 (not SSE) extentions into the Athlons, I can see the software being optimized for SSE2 and then AMD will be playing catch up again.

[quote]Originally posted by JWW:
<strong>Hmmmmmmmmmmmm everyone going on about how much the Athlons outperform the P3's & P4's etc, but nobody has mentioned the Tualatin yet which is outperfoming Athlons of Equivalent speed in non-optimised tests on a lot of independant website reviews..</strong><hr></blockquote>

The Tualatins are very nice, and probably have a more efficient architecture than the P4s. But, Intel, being so hooked on this false P4 market hype, will cut short the life of Tualatin, as the P3 will exit the desktop arena by year-end. (Notebooks are another story, as mobile p4s won't be available until Q2-2002.)

Intel's only hope is Northwood for the P4. if they can make the P4 better, kudos to them. After that, it's time they price similarly to AMD.

Which is better Nissan or Toyota??

Both companies produce products that take off and become winners (when Intel released the PII+BX chipset, for example). It comes down to personal preference and money. I would love a Pentium 4/2Gig, but I ain't paying that much for something I would never use fully.

After using an Athlon system for a year now, I would recommend one, as the "bang per buck" is far superior to Intel. However, we always use Intel systems at work and generally have little trouble with them.

Both companies are equally Good (Or Bad, as the case may be), so put me down as a "Don't Know".

[quote]Originally posted by Geek #1:
<strong>Which is better Nissan or Toyota??</strong><hr></blockquote>

My Reliant :D

I've gone from a 350 P2 to a P3 500 then to a P3 800. Just recently I went with an AMD 1.4 and I love it. I have no problems with it. I cannot justify paying out the a$$ for an Intel processor that will not perform as well as the AMD does. I think the myth about intel being more stable is just that, a myth.

[quote]Originally posted by Brian G:
<strong>I've gone from a 350 P2 to a P3 500 then to a P3 800. Just recently I went with an AMD 1.4 and I love it. I have no problems with it. I cannot justify paying out the a$$ for an Intel processor that will not perform as well as the AMD does. I think the myth about intel being more stable is just that, a myth.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Preach on! Hail to the AMD!

Give me some sugar baby :) ... whos line was this :)

I feel that AMD are the better company hands down, for a variety of reasons

1. They run at fewer clock cycles but more preformance

2. They are cheaper

3. They actually answer questions submitted to their website. (I wrote Intel 3 times to as why the 80186 was called such and never received a reply, I wrote AMD and received a reply within a day)

4. IMHO they don't try to hype themselves as much as Intel.

They do run hotter though which is the only downside.

Another Intel vs AMD debate. Seems like I missed it.

Here goes my opinion.

Intel Advantages:
Quality
Reliability
Compatibility

Intel Disadvantages:
Price

AMD Advantages:
Quality
Price
Speed

AMD Disadvantages:
Heat
Reliability