AMD or Intel??
which do you prefer??
Printable View
AMD or Intel??
which do you prefer??
here we go again
AMD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven
whichever one you are giving me for free....
Stirring the pot? :p
I prefer AMD since my first foray into that territory was with an AthlonXP.
The price/performance ratio won me over and would still do so today with the current CPUs on the market.
I usually go with the best bang for the buck, and got lucky that the performance was also there.
Definitely Intel for Windows boxes. I prefer quality over saving a few dollars. AMD will always be second rate to Intel. However,.. I do believe AMD is a better processor for Linux boxes.
Price always wins for me too.
AMD for me unless it is for a Cad box, although I'd to try a 64 in one.
AMD = More bang for the buck at home
In servers nothing but INTEL XEONS
No Way - Dual Opterons! (should I vote twice?)Quote:
Originally Posted by thorian
What is wrong with you people? AMD sucks. Intel Rulez!! :cool:
intel = slow slow slow and way to much money and a rip off for what u get 3 ghz my @ss more like 300 MHZ
AMD baby!
I agree. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by +Daemon+
AMD. Especially since their 64bit chips hit the market.
Intel has fallen behind. Heck, they're just now supporting features that AMD supported a year ago.
That's right folks, clockspeed isn't everything.
Ya its sad :sad:Quote:
Originally Posted by WebHead
My little AMD kicks intel=slow butt everyday :)
dirty thread changing posts :p
Indeedy ;) .. but I'd also add it depends on where you want to use it & what for, though generally an AMD fan (on the bang for buck theory already expressed) when its not my money I take a more measured approach & then I have to say Intel, not because its really better accross the board with performance or anything but their motherboard support is generally much better, which with certain AMD & various chipset combos can definately be less than perfect, but that isn't really at all to do with the chips themselves, but I can bet it colours others perceptions of which is best ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by +Daemon+
Intel > AMD
reliability always wins for me.
everytime i see an AMD processor or a chipset that supports one there seem to be problems...
I have been lucky so far with my 1800xp. The price is definatly what sold me. If I hade money burning a hole in my pocket, I would go with Intel.
never had a problem an amd chip, had them since 300 mhz- dual amd mp 2000+ intel chips had some problems, key is to get non-oem only retail
I vote intel for reliability reasons as well as they have a much easier return policy, not that I've ever had to return more than 1 intel cpu in my life, but from the couple RMA's I've done with AMD, they can kiss my white :butt:
my first intel is my game lappy p4 2.8 ghz w/ht thing is its just as fast as my amd xp 2500+ :/ but I do like it right now, I would not buy a intel chip cause the performance sux for the $$$ but I do give intel credit on the ht that really does speed things up
This is what I'm talking about. It's not like it used to be, where you either like AMD or Intel just out of spite. The Intel P4 w/ HT is clearly the better choice based on overall performance for desktop computing bar none. It's just a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by +Daemon+
And yeah yeah,.. now I'm going to hear, "What about the AMD 64 blah blah blah". Well cool,.. if you want to go out and purchase a whole new mobo just to have this, then knock urself out (so much for saving money). I'll stick with my P4 w/ HT thanks very much. :D
So that's a 'webby fact' is it ? :p .. the benchmarks have it the other way around & generally any new cpu purchase means matched board & memory too, some of us over here in the non webby world will of course either re-use the entire set together or sell them all off together, a cpu on its own ain't no use to man nor webby ! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by WebHead
Ok,.. besides the AMD 64,.. please tell me which processor out-performs a P4 w/ HT. I can tell you the answer -- None, which is exactly why AMD rushed this wimpy AMD 64 out the door as soon as they could because it's the only thing they have that compares to a P4. They knew they were going to fall seriously behind if they didn't make this move. Now Intel will examine their processor,.. make their own 64-bit processor which will be ten times better for a slightly higher cost,.. then check-mate, game over.Quote:
Originally Posted by confus-ed
How about a zeon ? :p .. :thumbs2:
Wimpy amd 64 my backside, the 'rubbish ones' AMD 'nearly 64' for socket 954 are as good/better than a new P4 (in bang for buck terms way better), & the 'real ones' the 64 fx variety (socket 939) are up in zeon land for the money & performance (better!) ..
Intels performance bubble has been busted good & propper, we are now seeing supped up versions of p4's with larger cache sizes in attempt to catch up ! so they know too ..
Hyper threading doesn't even have an effect in loads of stuff, you need to tailor the application, its like all that speculative fetch stuff they got so excited about before, its 'brill' if your application takes advantage of it correctly, but no use whatsoever if it doesn't, infact on occassion counter productive.
& oh Intel have their own 64 bit chip already when you've finnished telling me all about the things I already know about from inside your 'must back Intel stance' - its called Itanium
Yeah, that was an excellent product... for babies! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by confus-ed
Intel couldn't get 64 bit right the first and probably not the second time either:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11..._itanium_kick/
Well,.. I mine is an 800MHz fsb. Just wanted to point that out. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by a d e p t
Lol ;) ..I never said they were any good ! I was just fighting 'webby fact' :D- now there's this dude I occasionally do work for who thinks 'Intel, Intel ,Intel' like as in the 'badger song' (& I think he's also been on the mushrooms far too much as well - if you don't know what I mean {not necessarily Adept - just anyone} -try this Badger :D ) & he's got a few of the first ones in some servers, but he's so 'Intel devoted' he won't hear of any other either - do you fancy a trip over here & tell him that ? -everytime I do, he scowls & threatens to never ever use me again ! :eek2:Quote:
Originally Posted by a d e p t
Well,.. I have already mentioned that I do use both. I have AMD in my notebook (notebook used for web browsing / email downloads) and Intel on my desktop PCs (the workhorses: games / photo editing / web design / etc.) So am I an Intel loyalist? And Intel monkey/Yes-man? I think not. Do I make up facts as I go along? Maybe,.. but the things I say are all based on experience and not based on stuff I read on popular computer websites,.. and after using Intel products for around 20 years now, I know they are reliable and I know they work. I also know that AMD has been trying for 20 years to match the quality of an Intel product. Now logically, for long-term usage, which would I choose to trust my data with based on what we know about both?Quote:
Originally Posted by confus-ed
(and yes,.. I do realize I am beating a dead horse here.) :D
Oops.Quote:
Originally Posted by WebHead
I thought I had corrected that before hitting the post button.
So this makes it even more of a lame duck, no? https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif
Wait a second here,.. are you trying to trick me into thinking AMD is better? I will not fall for it. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by a d e p t
Drats.Quote:
Originally Posted by WebHead
Foiled again. https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif
Good. I win! :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by a d e p t
No need to trick someone into believing AMD is better
I say Webhead+RD should keep using Intel
They have to unload their crap somewhere
:flame:
And you guys can all get your AMD cheap crap, pretend it performs better -- meanwhile I wil laugh as you struggle to cool the damn things while they get so hot that all the traces on your mobo fuse together, have to reboot 14 hundred times a day so the mobo can catch it's breath and most applications will have issues because you just "had to have" that latest and greatest alternative product that most applications weren't even written for anyway.
Again,.. if you are a Linux user,.. then yeah, AMD probably rocks over Intel. But on a Windows based machine, I don't care how many statistical printouts you shove in my face, how many Toms Hardware articles say so -- hands down, Intel just plainly performs more gooderly than AMD does.
HEH obviously you havent read the latest power usage on P-4's and A64's
Dont make me come over there and install Bonzai Buddy Cause I will! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Ferrit
No , the Intel 2.8ghz 800fsb is a little better than like my AMD 1.5ghz 266fsbQuote:
Originally Posted by a d e p t
(with PC-2100 mem.)
and thats :sad: for intels
I don't have any problems with overheating ( just checked the temps : CPU a cool 36.C degree's)
:devil: