INTEL vs AMD
 

OK, so later this spring I am going to build a new machine and I wanted to get your thoughts on which processor everyone likes. I know I know the debate could go on forever.

This is just going to start a flame war, you know that right?

I use both processors and they each have their advantages and disadvantages. I also have a Sun Machine up at work that uses UltraSPARC III Cu processors.

Why did you start this thread? I'm sure this has been done and worked over numerous times.

Yes this thread has be done a few times, but unless you are a total computer geek it is hard to know who has the better processor out at the moment. I use AMD simply because they are cheaper, and seem to do the job. Oh if you go for Intel, I think some of their new processors need new special memory.

Well now that AMD has gone with the 64bit processor, I thought I would get everyone's opinion.

Sorry for those of you who are sick of this debate. My apologies if this has been done thousands of times before. I just did a search on INTEL vs AMD and yes there has been much discussion on the topic, so I am sorry.

What are you planning to use your PC for? The old standard (read: 2 months ago :crazy: ) was that AMDs performed slightly better than equivalents on gaming, and Intels performed slightly better on video editing, encoding, etc.

I was planning on more gaming than video editing. Games, the microsoft office suite, Photoshop, perhaps a little video editing but more gaming.

I have two AMD's and one P4.

Between my two fastest computers (P4-2.8GHz and AMD 2400+) the AMD is noticeably faster (all other components are equal). I seem to get a lag on my P4 after a period of time (requiring a reboot) while I rarely see this happen on my AMD.

When it comes time to upgrade the P4, I plan on switching it to AMD and all of my machines will be AMD.

Intel just released the 6xx series of processors with the EMT64 extensions, and a 2MB Level 2 cache.
So, now both companies have 64-bit processors, although there is little software out now that takes advantage of it.

My vote: Intel

Interms of what I currently use its AMD 64. But the system that gets used most now is my G5 Mac. So I guess I would have to vote AMD sence no apple proc are on the list.

I just use AMD because they are notoriously easier to overclock. That's my sole reason to use AMD.

This question can be answered in one sentence: buy an AMD if you're on a budget or want to play games and buy an Intel if you're gonna do media creation (movie making, CAD, encoding, ripping, etc.). This statement is considering the best that AMD and Intel have to offer. In other words, it doesn't work the same way for Celerons and Durons.

-Lasereth

AMD for supporting 64 bit cheaply, even if Microsoft won't come out with 64 bit windows :confused:

Opteron with Linux is the way to go. I recomend Gentoo.

AMD processors have the best price : performance ratio. Hands down. Naturally this doesn't quite hold when you look at bleeding-edge stuff, but for any reasonably-equipped system, the same $1000 will get you a much faster AMD platform than a $1000 Intel platform.

/AMD employee

I'm thinking of upgrading my other PC with one of Intel's 6xx series 64-bit, 2MB L3 Cache processor. Anyone had any experience with them yet?

I don't think that many people have had any experience with the Intel 6xx series, but here is a review that may help you (no 64 bit benchmarks on the chip yet/from this review)
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/20...0/index.x?pg=1

MAn Alive... The way this thread reads you'd think there are only two Processor manufacturers...



DYNTAM

Definitely AMD. The latest Athlon 64s pwn the latest P4s. Plus you have to look at price difference. AMDs have always been cheaper in terms of bang for the buck.

That pretty much sums it up there.

AMD for sure! i have 3 amd computers a 3000+,2600+,2200+

AMD,my 2500 can overclocked to 3200 without add voltage!

but it is not thinked better than intel in my contry,i am so sorry!

I absolutely love my Athlon64, and for the price I paid I couldn't have gotten a better damn deal.

I love my amd, I use an amd2500 xp and overclock it to over 267 fsb...

AMD FX53 here, worth every penny.

I just wanted to thank you all for your help. I will update you when I make my purchase

The only thing that worries me about the AMD's is the multitasking benchmark.

If your into games AMD is the way to go. Certain 3d/media creation tasks run faster on Intel(often due to these programs using SSE3). This will all change soon though. AMD's next version of the A64 will support SSE3. The other HUGE change is Windows 64 bit edition. Early tests between Intels new 6 series(64 bit processors) and AMD's Athlon 64 on RC2 of WinXP 64 bit show a huge increase for the Athlon. The big thing is that the Athlon 64 was built to be a 64bit processor from the ground up whereas Intel's new 64 bit chips really just have 64bit support tacked on.

The thing I like the most is that people can't call AMD's chips "Clone's" anymore. Intels implementation of 64bit is basically a copy of AMD's.

Competition is good :-)

For years i had always used pentium, then when it came time to upgrade i was on a budget and ended up getting and athlonxp 2400. i loved it. when i upgraded again i went with the athlon 64 3200 and its working great for me. moved the 2400 over to my server and it runs great. i have nothing against either processor. they both run great. at work i run a network of about 30 computers and about 90 percent of them are all amd and we have no problems. if intel comes out with a processor that totally kicks amd's ass, then i'll probably go with it.

I use AMD at first for cost vs. performance. But after getting used to them I really like AMD. I understand for my use (gaming) I am more than happy with them over Intel. Intel are good processors aswell. And I doubt very much for the uses most of us use them for ( again Gaming) you wouldn't be able to tell.

My 2cents. AMD all the way.

i had always thought pentiums were the fastest. are amds faster?

I personally go for AMD as much as possible. My personal desktop is an Athlon64 3000 chip and I CAN overclock it, I got a mobo that has every speed/voltage setting you can think of, I just don't know squat about overclocking and have been to lazy to figure it out. Other machines of mine include an Athlon XP Pro 2600+, Athlon T-Bird 1400, Duron 750 (my personal production server), Pentium 3 600mhz (BitTorrent and FTP on my home conenction), Athlon XP 2100 and Athlon Duron 1ghz lappy's.

I have a P4 2.4 ghz at work and the thing sucks ass. It's a Dell, not a home brew, so I'll give Intel the benefit of the doubt, but I can't see spending $400 on board and chip to achive 3ghz when I can spend $240 on an board and AMD chip at 2ghz and not notice a real difference. I don't encode movies or do music production, so I don't see the benefit of getting Intel.

I went dual proc. on my machine so I thought it best to stay with intel. It's been very very good to me... ;-)

I've had both, I've enjoyed using both.
I hate these polls, but human nature doesnt let me pass up a poll.

AMD since that is what my current rig is. It may change next time with new technology.

Intel. same reasons I buy Levi's jeans...

AMD, since it's faster (greatly) on anything else than media creation on the low/mid -class and faster/equal on high-end.

The differences usually go like Intel has 1-7% gain in media creation and amd has 10-30% edge on everything else.

I also run nowdays all own systems with AMD (barton, athlon mp on tfp and opterons on my own) and office systems on intel (only because dell doesn't sell amd and I'm not allowed to buy different brand).

It's a no-brainer to choose AMD.

[edit]The newest high-end AMD's seem to beat intel even in the media creation[/edit]