AMD or INTEL?

Which do YOU prefer? AMD or Intel?

Comments welcome! Experiences with the Processors welcome! Life stories not welcome!

 

I voted Intel as that's what I'm using now in my main machine though it's AMD in my other home built rig. I chose Intel this time as the price was right last August, and had more L2 cache than the Phenom. I like both, just depends on my timing(money) on which I'll buy plus specs. Intel won out this time around.

 

I used to be all for Intel but since I've gotten my AMD machine I lean a little more towards the AMD side. AMD seems to be a little cheaper and it gets the job done.

 

Personally, on my home PC, I have always used AMD processors, primarily because I'm not rich. LOL They have traditionally had a great performance-to-price ratio. I have nothing against Intel, and they do make some excellent CPUs, it just happens that I can't afford the $200+ for a new C2Q.

 

Always bought Intel, if it aint broke...

 

Intel. What other option?

I had an AMD based portable that ran like a snail, crashed like a dodgeum and overheated like a volcano. Intel no such problems.

 

You can't base overall processor and a company on one bad experience escially with computers as your motherboard coulda been shit, lots of other varibles.

 

Well whether you can or you can't alot of people do, and not just people on MG ... I've got a lady blaming me for screwing her computer ... I worked on it a week ago and didn't touch the HW and now the LAN card is playing up ... purely coincidental but she doesn't know that, and can't understand it either.

 

Yeah true, but how does the saying go, 'trick me once shame on you, trick me twice shame on me.' While there is an alternative to AMD, why bother with it. I have had a lot of intel systems and no hassle so why give AMD the benefit of the doubt again? I mean okay cost... but performance is more important to me.

btw, Drizzles, now that is just bad luck

 

I agree rik_na ... had alot of it lately ... but adding to what you said ... out of the 20 bung CPUs that I've dealt with in the past 5 years, only two of them have been Intel, the rest AMD of course.

 

Well look on the bright side Drizzles, you are overdue some good luck which should be heading your way.

Re. CPU's, yeah I always figured this would be the case but its nice to hear it confirmed. I cant recall anyone ever saying to me that they choose AMD over Intel becasue the performance was better. It was always a cost issue.

 

This thread needs moved to hot button topics really, as thats all it boils down to, each has its plus and negitives, and a bunch of fan boys in between, me included.

 

I'm actually pretty much decided on what I like, I used ATI once and it never worked properly from day one, plus I could never find drivers for it after I upgraded OS ... I made this more for the benefit of others.

 

Brand loyalty is perhaps the ultimate exhibit of human absurdity. Whether its Intel vs AMD or GM vs Toyota - manufacturers do not care about you. They care about your money - thats it. Why people look past obvious flaws or overlook benefits in the name of brand loyalty is something I will never understand

That being said, over the years I have built many computers and have had cpu's from all manufacturers, AMD, Intel, Cyrix, IBM. They all served their purpose and none really stick out except for a few champion overclockers from both camps. I've never had a CPU fail from any manufacturer even after years of abuse.

If I did have to pick a winner for the sake of this thread, it would be AMD, since I like rooting for the underdog.

 

LOL, you just negated your whole premise!:-D

Ya, it's always price/performance for me and nothing else. Plus, I never buy bleeding edge though I would if I could afford it. I let the real geeks blow their rigs up first before I plunk down my hard earned bucks.

 

Amen, brother! :-D

 

After the Socket 423 debacle, AMD...

 

:eek :confused R E A L L Y ? ! ? ! ? ! Wow. That's amazing. I wish I could say the same. Just a couple weeks ago I was working on a lady's PC that would power up, it would POST with the beep, and reboot, all in 5-7 seconds. I swapped the RAM, HD, PSU, even pulled the modem, cleared the CMOS, you name it. I was just about to call it a bad mobo when I said "I'll try a different chip". That was it. A different CPU and it booted straight Windows and is still running fine 3 weeks later. The chip? Intel Pentium 4 2.80ghz socket 478. As far as failed chips, I have encountered more-or-less equal numbers of both AMD and Intel processors that have failed, so I can't really say if one brand is 'better' than the other....

roflmao Socket 423!!! LOL LOL roflmao
I think the s423 was a Intel's attempt at a joke. It was a bad joke... a REALLY bad joke....
roflmao LOL

 

Intel here, my friend uses AMD and i dunno i just see more performance out of mine than his, though he is using a dual core and built a "budget PC" but honestly my PC was only about 1200 dollars and for the performance i get i dont see why anyone would insist on building a PC for half the cost if it doesnt perform nearly as well.

I know the economy sucks and all, but save up! Take 10dollars a week and put it in a jar, after 5months you will have lots of money!!

As far as intel goes, Core i7 is SEXXXXXY!!!! LOVE THIS THING!!!

<3

 

No more opinions???

 

"My Friend uses AMD" - that is such a generic statement. Doesnt mention anything about cpu specs or overal system specs.

Dollar for dollar, if you can save some $$$ by going from Intel to AMD , you can spend that extra money elsewhere and suddenly you have a 24" LCD instead of a 21. Or an extra terrabyte of storage, or double the memory, or a nice auzentech or m-audio sound card instead of some onboard POS.

People (like your friend) build systems for half the cost because a $500 system likely meets there needs, or maybe they only have $500 to spend. Maybe they have kids to feed, or heaven forbid actually save money for a rainy day or for their retirement. All kinds of reasons why people are interested in saving money. But its not even about saving money, its about getting the mostfor your money.

Either way, competition is good for us consumers. If I think back, it wasnt that long ago, Intel's cpu's ran hot, with no overclocking headroom and piss poor performance compared to AMD's. With the i7 those days are long behind us, but whats exciting is to see what AMD can come up with to compete with the i7's.

 

Maybe I should rephrase that...

I've never had a CPU Fail from something other than what was my total abuse or stupidity. About 8 years ago, I had just bought a new AMD Thunderbird 1.2ghz processor. I cant remember the motherboard, but it was an MSI, and this was when things like Fuzzy Logic and utilities to overclock in windows were relatively new (at least to me). For the record I have always had overclocked computers , going back to my Pentium 200. Anyways... So after building the system, installing windows etc - I open up fuzzy logic. And its windows based overclocking. And i'm totally dumbfounded. "No Way!" i say to myself. No more tinkering in the BIOS? No more endless reboots to test for stability? This was all too good to be true. Theres no way it could be this easy.

Now this is perhaps the stupidest thing I've ever done around a computer, and I'm ashamed to admit this publicly somewhat, (LOL) but basically, I was in such disbelief I could adjust FSB values and Multipliers within windows that I changed the FSB from like 133 (or whatever it ran at, cant really remember) to like 300. Something completely ridiculous. (again, this makes me sound like such an idiot, lol) So after I cranked the FSB, I hit "apply".

...

..

Within - seriously - less than a nanosecond of clicking apply, the screen cuts out. Then the light starts blinking - no video signal. And that was it, I just turned my new CPU into an expensive paperweight.

So yes, I have blown up CPU's.... but as a function of my stupidity, not from regular use

 

Dib,

As they say, "casual use does not constitute abuse".

However, I myself have seen AMD CPUs take more abuse than a comparable Intel.

That is, before the i7 core, which I have no reference point, or history in regard to...

Sir, I must say, you have more than a nominal degree of my respect for your objectivity.

 

I've used nothing but AMD, ever. It is about price mainly. I don't think there is much difference myself though, get what you want and be happy.

Motherboards are a different story. There is a huge variation in quality out there on those gadgets.

 

I've had numerous computers, and all those that have had Processor problems, have had Intel processors. I've never run into a serious processor issue in any of my three AMD machines.

 

Interesting topic, poll is 50/50% atm

Anyway I can't say for sure as I haven't used an AMD processor before, how strange it seems most people's computers have Intel processors lol. Yeah anyway true performance would be Intel, the reason behind the high pricing, if your looking for an affordable price and decent quality then AMD.

But overall Intel

 

+1.

Just go for whatever is the best for you at the time and don't bother with brand loyalty.

 

Funny Dacads, I thought is was the ridiculous high end salaries...

 

According to latest updates, Intel Corp, California-based chip maker has announced its plan to rule out the majority of its Core i7 processors, including the recently launched 950 model.

The company said, in future, the Nehalem-based chips would be replaced by Intel's much anticipated Lynnfield models, which will be introduced alongside a new platform, featuring the new LGA1156 socket. The only CPU that seems to have a longer life on Intel's product line is the new 3.33GHz Core i7 975 part.

In a recent update, the company has called that Intel's Core i7 920, 940, 950 and 965 processors will be end-of-life (EOL) by the end of next-year. These are part of the chip maker's initial wave of Nehalem-based CPUs, providing users with an increased performance level and a new high-end platform.

The Intel Core i7 975 and the new LGA1366-capable 6-core processors will be available for the company's current flagship desktop platform, with an upcoming wave of Lynnfield processors and new platforms will provide users with support for the mainstream market segment.

However, there are no specific details from the company as to when they plans on phasing out the aforementioned products.

 

amd hear price vs performance
intel is just WAY to high for what they give ya on real world usage IMO

its around $1000.00 for the top of the line intel and there is just no good enough reason for it to be that high
don't get me wrong I7 is NICE but over priced IMO

AMD Phenom 2 gets me pretty much were I want to be but at alot less $ then intel

 

If I won the lotto but ... Intel Core i7 Extreme edition!!!! All the way! :-D

 

I recently had not one but two Intel systems die on me with no overclocking, no heat issues, no real reason at all. I've had AMD systems in the past that never gave me trouble. My current laptop is an AMD machine and the next desktop I build will be an AMD.

 

I have 2 different Intel's in 2 different machines. It seems AMD has been asleep behind the wheel for at least the last 12-18 months (IMHO) and any serious gamer snapped up the Core2Duo, some went for the Quad and now others are grabbing the Octa Cores (I7). Sadly AMD has not even been trying in most of the reviews I was reading about 6 months ago and has allowed Intel to dominate for the moment. Hopefully AMD will bring something soon to market and erode Intel's dominance and drive some good old competition and R&D......which always benefits the end users.

I would use either make but I look for bang for buck, not fizzle for buck.....lol.

 

I'm hearing you I just had an Intel 805D die (it was a little gem to) and I put it down to those ridiculously cheap and nasty Intel stock HS's, those plastic lugs that attach to the mobo seem to fall apart if you break wind near them. Our bloody HS had popped one of the lugs and the CPU got fried.

 

Well I really wasn't expecting that ... 50 50 ... great turnout people!