AMD or Intel?

[Earlz]

Which one is better CPU wise?

[brakos82]

I like Intel better, but that's possibly just me. Had a total nightmare with one computer with AMD, I think it mentally scarred me.

[Thesh]

I have had good experiences with both. Back in the Athlon XP days, AMD was king. These days, Intel has the edge in the high end, but if you want a budget system then that's where AMD delivers. Note that I am talking about the desktop market only.

[Charlemagne_]

You'll get a perfectly functional machine with either. I don't particularly favour one or the other, but I believe the general consensus as of late that AMD will get you bang-for-buck, whereas Intel will get you power, though not necessarily for the most reasonable price. My advice would be to do some research and choose a CPU based on that which your computer will be doing.

[Endless Mike]

Depends. Laptops and netbooks are Intel almost for sure. AMD has nothing that compares to Intels offerings. Desktops I could go either way, although if I was building today, it would probably be an Intel i5-750 machine. As it is, all my current machines are Intel, but my last desktop was AMD and until I blew it up, I never had any problems with it.

[Berengal]

I'm an AMD man in my heart, but currently I have an Intel CPU, and if I were to buy a new one today I'd probably go for Intel again. The AMDs I've had were all very good soldiers though, helping me through tough times of ever-more-demanding games and the poverty of teenagerdom. From I was 13 to I was 20 all I had was second-hand versions of cheap AMDs, but they all overclocked like crazy, even on stock cooling, and always managed to avoid being the bottleneck in my system, despite being the cheapest and oldest part of it most of the time.
My current Intel is doing exceedingly well too though. It and its friends, high-end GPU and high-end RAM, still manage to play games on ultra-high without even breaking a sweat. It's pretty impressive considering they're all close to three years old, but since they were all state-of-the-art in desktop computing, costing me the soul of my firstborn, it doesn't feel as valiant as what the AMD chips did for me.

[styrofoam]

Intel. AMDs are cheaper per mHz, but mHz isn't everything. Intels seem to last longer and do have more cache.

Like brakos82, I had a horrible experience with an AMD system, so I'm surely biased.

[hotaru]

back when i bought my first 64-bit machine, the fact that the amd processors had on-die memory controllers was a huge advantage over intel.
especially since i was working with some extremely heavily memory-bound tasks... a job that took about an hour on a machine with a quad-core 3GHz intel processor only took about 15 minutes on my machine with it's single-core 1.6GHz amd processor.

it seems intel also has on-die memory controllers now, tho.

[stephentyrone]

If you're buying now, and in the high-end market, Intel. The current Intel micro-architecture is a beautiful thing; the current AMD micro-architecture is rather long in the tooth, and its age is showing.

If you're in the low-to-mid sector of the market, get whatever you can get a good deal on, they're both totally adequate.

If you mean in general, instead of right now, shrug. Fanboys will be fanboys either way.

[MakotoTheKnight]

Putting my fatal flaw as an AMD fanboy aside, I would say that it depends on the type of system you're going for.

Tower: If you want effective and affordable, AMD is reasonably priced. If you want effective and you happen to have a mint in your back pocket, Intel gives you more 'bang for the buck'.

Laptop: AMD have run cooler in my experiences, but I can't snub Intel either.

Netbook/Ultraportable: Wait, there's competition in this field? This one belongs solely to Intel (which is too bad; the Neo X2 chips looked promising).

[cerbie]

Intel. AMDs are cheaper per mHz, but mHz isn't everything. Intels seem to last longer and do have more cache.

Like brakos82, I had a horrible experience with an AMD system, so I'm surely biased.

Both last well beyond obsolescence, and I've had bad instances of both, even using Intel brand mobos, and Intel CPUs that allegedly shouldn't have been able to fry themselves. At the same time, I've had situations with both that should have resulted in catastrophic failure, for which they gave no symptoms, and kept on trucking; with the problem only to be discovered inadvertently (FI, cleaning a case, and finding a dusty CPU HSF with a dead fan, yet the machine ran just fine under load). They've both had duds, over the years.

Right now, IMO, AMD IGP makes for great cheapish desktops, and acceptable portables (IE, not made to run on battery, except to stay running until you reach a new outlet). If you don't think $150+ is too much to spend on a CPU for a desktop, Intel wipes the floor with them.

[styrofoam]

Both last well beyond obsolescence, and I've had bad instances of both, even using Intel brand mobos, and Intel CPUs that allegedly shouldn't have been able to fry themselves.

If you don't use computers past "obsolecence," I envy your income and don't envy your habits.

Right now, IMO, AMD IGP makes for great cheapish desktops, and acceptable portables (IE, not made to run on battery, except to stay running until you reach a new outlet). If you don't think $150+ is too much to spend on a CPU for a desktop, Intel wipes the floor with them.

That seems to be how everyone feels, it's just a matter of if the improvement Intel provides is worth the extra cost. I think it is, especially with how much longer it lasts (helps offset the price), and the extra cache (not widely advertised, but it matters a lot).

[hintss]

the first computer I ever used was an AMD.

but now, we don't use anything but intel. because we don't build our systems and apparently, nettops and netbooks and newer Dell Latitude machines use intel...

also, armagetron advanced runs fine on an acer aspire one...at 9 FPS...

[cerbie]

Both last well beyond obsolescence, and I've had bad instances of both, even using Intel brand mobos, and Intel CPUs that allegedly shouldn't have been able to fry themselves.

If you don't use computers past "obsolecence," I envy your income and don't envy your habits.

Why is obsolescence in quotes? Except as a personal challenge, you don't use things past obsolescence.

Right now, IMO, AMD IGP makes for great cheapish desktops, and acceptable portables (IE, not made to run on battery, except to stay running until you reach a new outlet). If you don't think $150+ is too much to spend on a CPU for a desktop, Intel wipes the floor with them.

That seems to be how everyone feels, it's just a matter of if the improvement Intel provides is worth the extra cost.

The extra cost can go to things not computer related. IMO, it's Intel's one problem with the i3 series, now: the question is not, "how fast of a computer should I get," as often as it is, "how cheap can I get a computer that will last me a few years?" If you have the money to spend, there's no question that Intel is superior in every way but IGP, which basically just adds another $30-50 to the total cost, if it is a concern. The Athlon II X2-X4 are highly competitive, there, and even the latest games don't need more than <$100 AMD CPUs can offer.

I think it is, especially with how much longer it lasts (helps offset the price), and the extra cache (not widely advertised, but it matters a lot).

Not really. More cache doesn't give you anything, in that case. A Core i5 gives you plenty over a Phenom II, but cache size might just happen to be different--it's not making the performance difference, as it might be with the Phenom II v. Athlon II. Intel just happens to be able to make higher performance SRAM than anyone else on the planet, and do it cheaper than anyone else on the planet.

[meatyochre]

I'm currently using a 10 year old dell desktop that was EXTREMELY well built. My own pc blew up finally and it's tiding me over until I can afford to build a new one. It has an Intel processor. So there are good reasons to use a computer past its age of obsolescence.

But really I like AMD better, I built my first computer with an AMD processor and ran it into corpse dust. AMD4LYFE

[cerbie]

I'm currently using a 10 year old dell desktop that was EXTREMELY well built. My own pc blew up finally and it's tiding me over until I can afford to build a new one. It has an Intel processor. So there are good reasons to use a computer past its age of obsolescence.

You're able to use it as a desktop. It's clearly not obsolete, yet. When you can't get drivers, or no useful new software works on it for performance or feature reasons, it's obsolete (no longer useful). At least half of my computer time in spent on a machine nearly that old. With Noscript and ABP set up, and Noscript blocking all Flash, it ain't half bad.

And yeah, per-Fiorina HPs and Dells rocked (Dell started cutting corners around the time HP started going down that road). Even the craptastic machines just don't want to die.

Obsolescence is difficult to measure, due to required technologies changing (FI, GbE is making many PCI-only computers obsolete for what might be common repurposings, like file servers or HTPCs, because they just can't push 100MB/s of data through multiple ports), but something new and fast does not make an older slower one useless, and basically all CPUs last well beyond the point where they can be upgraded, repaired, or have useful software work on them.

[Minchandre]

I personally veer towards Intel these days because we're leaving reliable Moore's Law territory into some weirder stuff, and AMD just doesn't have Intel's budget to spend on weird-ass R&D. AMD also can't afford to keep retooling their factories every 2 years, which is IIRC why they have gone or are planning to go fabless. And you just can't trust people without a fab

[hintss]

I visited an ASE factory once in Taiwan, and it was awesome to watch the manufacturing machines, wafers, and everything in person.

they had people manually transporting the wafers...

also, the pick and place machines that remove the unfinished chips from the wafer.

also, if you have a cold, cleanrooms will pretty much instantaneously make your nose clear up...

this thread brings back memories...

[demian]

AMD all the way.
Besides of it's stability,i read that a phenom II was overclocked to run at...7Ghz!!!
I'd like to see an intel doing that .

[Thesh]

AMD all the way.
Besides of it's stability,i read that a phenom II was overclocked to run at...7Ghz!!!
I'd like to see an intel doing that .

http://news.softpedia.com/news/7GHz-Pentium-6202.shtml

Older processor, almost 5 years ago.

[Minchandre]

AMD all the way.
Besides of it's stability,i read that a phenom II was overclocked to run at...7Ghz!!!
I'd like to see an intel doing that .

http://news.softpedia.com/news/7GHz-Pentium-6202.shtml

Older processor, almost 5 years ago.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/24/pent ... e-2-try-t/

Pentium 4, 8 GHz! Custom motherboard with copper tubing and liquid nitrogen cooling (though the 7 GHz set up probably had similar).

Fun fact: with a clock speed of 8 GHz, signals travel about 2.5-3.5 cm from the beginning of one clock cycle to the next! (actual speed depends on the precise wire and chip configuration and materials). Because CPUs can be as large as 1 cm per side, and because there's delays associated with gates and such (i.e. you want your signals to propagate much faster than 1 cycle), pushing clock speeds much higher might start to fail just because of delays! High speed digital design is krazy. With a k. Thus the Black Magic.

[fooliam]

I prefer AMD. I acknowledge that AMD often doesn't have as much performance as Intel, but I really don't think the slight performance edge offered by Intel justifies the often much higher price.

[demian]

AMD all the way.
Besides of it's stability,i read that a phenom II was overclocked to run at...7Ghz!!!
I'd like to see an intel doing that .

http://news.softpedia.com/news/7GHz-Pentium-6202.shtml

Older processor, almost 5 years ago.

Woah,i haven't seen that one!
Thanks for the link.

[Kromix]

AMD all the way for me, or at least whenever i can

i love AMD, have used AMD ever since i satrted building my systems, and will prefer AMD over intel. I have computers at home runnig intel and AMD, and as i have posted before, i always keep Intel with Nvidia and AMD with ATI. now that ATI and AMD are one, it further reinforces the division. i have never had an issue with an AMD CPU but i have had issues with Intel CPUs in the past being unstable. None overclocked.

[Stay_Puft_marshmallows]

I once raised my lance and rode into battle for AMD, but I've since mellowed.

The only reason AMD was a no-brainer for my current box is because I was on a budget and it was easier to rebuild in the same chipset as the previous proc.

[SlyReaper]

Having gone from a £70 Intel dual core at 3.6GHz to a £120 AMD Phenom II quad core at 3.8GHz, I actually noticed worse performance, and this was confirmed in benchmarks too. Higher clocks (higher stock clock speed too), more cores, more expensive, lower performance. Go figure.

Of course, it might be the motherboard's fault, I have no way of telling. But for now, I'm raising the flag for Intel even though my main computer has a Phenom II.

[Kromix]

Having gone from a £70 Intel dual core at 3.6GHz to a £120 AMD Phenom II quad core at 3.8GHz, I actually noticed worse performance, and this was confirmed in benchmarks too. Higher clocks (higher stock clock speed too), more cores, more expensive, lower performance. Go figure.

Of course, it might be the motherboard's fault, I have no way of telling. But for now, I'm raising the flag for Intel even though my main computer has a Phenom II.

I blame either PICNIC or PEBKAC on your issue

I still go AMD

[SlyReaper]

Having gone from a £70 Intel dual core at 3.6GHz to a £120 AMD Phenom II quad core at 3.8GHz, I actually noticed worse performance, and this was confirmed in benchmarks too. Higher clocks (higher stock clock speed too), more cores, more expensive, lower performance. Go figure.

Of course, it might be the motherboard's fault, I have no way of telling. But for now, I'm raising the flag for Intel even though my main computer has a Phenom II.

I blame either PICNIC or PEBKAC on your issue

Nice troll. You realise PICNIC and PEBKAC are the same thing, right? It's not an either/or thing. So what do you suggest I'm doing wrong? Overclocks on both chips were 24 hour prime95 stable, so that's not an issue. Why would benchmarks be lower on the AMD if it was a better chip?

Oh and is it just me or is the rolleyes smiley the single most rage inducing image since Emmanuel Goldstein?

[styrofoam]

Why would benchmarks be lower on the AMD if it was a better chip?

Crummy bus?

Oh and is it just me or is the rolleyes smiley the single most rage inducing image since Emmanuel Goldstein?

Hypocrisy

[SlyReaper]

Why would benchmarks be lower on the AMD if it was a better chip?

Crummy bus?

That's what I thought too, but the motherboard is higher spec than what I was using with the Intel chip too.

[Kromix]

Why would benchmarks be lower on the AMD if it was a better chip?

Crummy bus?

That's what I thought too, but the motherboard is higher spec than what I was using with the Intel chip too.

could be a crummy or overheated northbridge...

a lot of people do not pay attention to the northbridge...

[hintss]

Why would benchmarks be lower on the AMD if it was a better chip?

Crummy bus?

That's what I thought too, but the motherboard is higher spec than what I was using with the Intel chip too.

could be a crummy or overheated northbridge...

a lot of people do not pay attention to the northbridge...

yeah, I know I don't...but then, if northbridge just connects the CPU, RAM, and southbridge, then why do you need a seperate chip? and why can't the processor be the eastbridge or something?

[Kromix]

Why would benchmarks be lower on the AMD if it was a better chip?

Crummy bus?

That's what I thought too, but the motherboard is higher spec than what I was using with the Intel chip too.

could be a crummy or overheated northbridge...

a lot of people do not pay attention to the northbridge...

yeah, I know I don't...but then, if northbridge just connects the CPU, RAM, and southbridge, then why do you need a seperate chip? and why can't the processor be the eastbridge or something?

The processor is the central processing unit, that's why its not the east bridge, it does not bridge, it processes...

Northbridge you can say it's like a traffic light, it dictates traffic to the CPU via the FSB. It bridges the connection between CPU, RAM, Video and Southbridge. It is called the Northbridge because it sits on the upper half (depending on MoBo) of the board and the southbridge is un the lower half of the board. If you dont like the term Northbridge then you can call it by it's original name, Memory Controller Hub, or MCH. and call the Southbridge a ICH (I/O controller hub). i still like the terms north and south bridges.

[Game_boy]

Intel is faster per core per clock. That's why the Phenom II's performance is less. It's because you OC; Intel started from a lower clock so they can clock higher.

That doesn't mean AMD is worse, because at the same price as Intel they'll sell you more cores ($99: AMD quad-core, $114: Intel dual-core) or more GHz ($180: AMD 3.4GHz quad, $210: Intel 2.8GHz quad). On the server, they'll sell 12 cores for the price of Intel's 6.

The situation should change with AMD's new Bulldozer arch next year, but Intel has Sandy Bridge.

NB bus speeds don't make much difference; unless you're using a server, AMD's Hypertransport and Intel's QPI buses are fast enough. The NB isn't a seperate chip now: it's on the CPU die for both companies.

[Zardek]

I was a AMD guy in the past, loved the athlon x64... But I know use Intel.
I hate that Intel cpu´s get very hot and require more cooling, but their power is hard to get with any of the new AMD new products.

I´ve built many pc´s with both cpu´s... and for some reason I´ve had a lot better experience with INTEL.