AMD or Intel?

Started by dragpyre July 23rd, 2011 4:26 PM
  • 2917 views
  • 41 replies

dragpyre

The Brother's Fight For Hell

Find me in the Hoenn
Seen August 29th, 2012
Posted July 23rd, 2011
348 posts
14.8 Years
Which processor manufacturer are you using inside your PC, Notebook or netbook? And which manufacturer do you prefer?

My laptop runs from a Intel Celeron M 2.1GHZ, however, i prefer AMD processors, and i desire the Hexacore they produce. But, alas, my motherboard would melt if i tried.

Fire away!
Brother, Uncle, Cousin

Dawn

Queen of Magical Girls

She/Her
East Coast, USA
Seen 20 Hours Ago
Posted December 13th, 2022
4,594 posts
14.7 Years
Intel. Mainly because AMD doesn't give me reasons to try them.
Don't let your guard down
just 'cause we're cute!

We'll eat you right up!
Post Templates
[1] Hisui Legends

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?

Age 30
Male
London
Seen July 1st, 2022
Posted June 12th, 2019
2,389 posts
16.6 Years
Intel (Pentium 4) in this computer, AMD (Athlon II X3) in my other.

Intel is usually a more powerful processor but unless your doing a lot of video editing, dvd ripping, or large quanties of other CPU intensive things then AMD is better.

That said, I prefer AMD over Intel.

donavannj

Age 32
Male
'cause it get cold like Minnesota
Seen 4 Days Ago
Posted 1 Week Ago
22,513 posts
18.2 Years
I have an Intel Core 2 Duo in my Vaio laptop, and an AMD Phenom II X3 Black (triple core), and I honestly have no preference between AMD and Intel, though I probably would lean AMD more because AMD processors tend to be much cheaper than their rough equivalents from Intel.
whoops

Gerri Shin

  

Male
Burbank, CA
Seen February 17th, 2014
Posted April 13th, 2013
3,575 posts
15.9 Years
I mainly use Intel CPUs, I haven't been thrilled with the performance of the AMD chips I've used in the past. I'll use current generation AMD chips if Intel doesn't fit the budget, but I won't even touch anything before the Turion series. (I'd rather grab a Core series Intel than use anything before Turion)
Equipment:
Custom PC, MacBook Pro (MBPr), 3DSxl Blue, 3DS Midnight Purple, iPhone 4S Green

Archer

NSW, Australia
Seen January 26th, 2020
Posted January 5th, 2020
3,956 posts
16.6 Years
I mainly use Intel CPUs, I haven't been thrilled with the performance of the AMD chips I've used in the past. I'll use current generation AMD chips if Intel doesn't fit the budget, but I won't even touch anything before the Turion series. (I'd rather grab a Core series Intel than use anything before Turion)
Turion is the cut-down laptop CPUs from a previous generation. :/ I don't think anyone would want to use it... Nor would they use a Core2 based Celeron...

The Phenoms really aren't too bad. Considering that unless you're benching or doing seriously CPU-heavy work, most people wouldn't notice the difference between a Phenom 980 and an i7-950. You're in a different scenario with the Xeon, anyway.

I'm not going to argue for a minute that they're faster over all (value for money is a different thing), but I'm a massive AMD fan. I'm currently using an overclocked Phenom 965 Quad at around 3.9GHz and will probably upgrade to an AMD FX-8000 chip at the end of next year when this one starts showing its age.

TheAppleFreak

If it ain't broke, break it until it's fixed.

Age 28
Male
Seen April 11th, 2016
Posted February 23rd, 2012
791 posts
13.6 Years
My Mac has an Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz processor in it, and my netbook has an Intel Atom 1.6 GHz. My PC, thankfully enough, has an i7-950 in it (clocked at 3.06 GHz per core; I wanna try to overclock it soon).

I've had a bad history with AMD processors, so I tend to shy away from them.

Archer

NSW, Australia
Seen January 26th, 2020
Posted January 5th, 2020
3,956 posts
16.6 Years
My PC, thankfully enough, has an i7-950 in it (clocked at 3.06 GHz per core; I wanna try to overclock it soon).
Get some decent cooling (stock cooling sucks) and don't push the voltage too far and you'll be right. Read up on i7 overclocking, because they're a little complex.

I've had a bad history with AMD processors, so I tend to shy away from them.
What happened? They've been as reliable as Intel since the Athlon 64 era.
I use intel, because that is what my computer came which. XD
Well yes, you don't really get much choice once you have already bought a pre-built system. Of course you're stuck with the same brand of CPU.

I'm excited for AMD's Zambezi chips. Here's hoping they've matured to the B3 stepping enough for some serious overclocking headroom. :D

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen

Age 32
Male
Michigan
Seen February 19th, 2023
Posted April 30th, 2021
4,307 posts
14.2 Years
Which processor manufacturer are you using inside your PC, Mac, Notebook or netbook? And which manufacturer do you prefer?

My laptop runs from a Intel Celeron M 2.1GHZ, however, i prefer AMD processors, and i desire the Hexacore they produce. But, alas, my motherboard would melt if i tried.

Fire away!
Macs ARE PCs. PC stands for "personal computer." Edited.

I use Intel, by the way. Intel performance is always better. The AMD hex-core has worse performance than most of Intel's quad-core line, let alone their enterprise processors.


Intel (Pentium 4) in this computer, AMD (Athlon II X3) in my other.

Intel is usually a more powerful processor but unless your doing a lot of video editing, dvd ripping, or large quanties of other CPU intensive things then AMD is better.

That said, I prefer AMD over Intel.
I guess that's accurate. AMD is useful if you're not actually using your processor. For everyone else, Intel is far superior.
VNs are superior to anime, don't @ me

Archer

NSW, Australia
Seen January 26th, 2020
Posted January 5th, 2020
3,956 posts
16.6 Years
Intel performance is always better.
Not exactly. Intel's current top-end CPUs are faster than AMD's at this point in time.

By the way, what are your specs at the moment, twocows? Because anything below an i7 is in AMD territory*. So by your logic, anything slower than the i7 (both generations) counts as below the point of usability, as "AMD is useful if you're not actually using your processor."

Without clouding things up with bias, the fair statement would be that Intel dominates the super-high-end CPU market due to offering faster CPUs than AMD can offer. Sadly, there is actually a very small demographic of the computer-using world that has access to equipment of that level. Below that threshold, neither is better, so Intel and AMD are left to battle out a consumer-preference battle with the same levels of performance, with Intel currently making more sales due to a combination of a well-known name, a massive marketing budget and the halo effect from the top-end.

I'm all for brand loyalty; Intel certainly does have the upper hand at the moment, but suggesting that Intel is undeniably superior at every market segment is the sort of thing that increases the already-high level of miscalculated fear that currently plagues the computer market. Just try not to generalise.


* With exception of the i5-2500s in certain cases. Highly-threaded loads (which best fit the description of "actually using" a CPU to its full potential) allow the Thubans to achieve this, sure. But that's point. The equal raw grunt is clearly there.

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?

Age 30
Male
London
Seen July 1st, 2022
Posted June 12th, 2019
2,389 posts
16.6 Years
If Intel is always better, then why does my tricore AMD outpreform my Pentium 2 processor? You can argue age diffrence, but you said it yourself... Intel is always better.

Anyway, any thoughts on AMD's new APU's? Im wanting to build a computer using one, even though its CPU is only a quad.

Archer

NSW, Australia
Seen January 26th, 2020
Posted January 5th, 2020
3,956 posts
16.6 Years
Anyway, any thoughts on AMD's new APU's? Im wanting to build a computer using one, even though its CPU is only a quad.
The A8-3850? It depends on the use. It's still a budget-based chip, as the CPU isn't any faster than the Phenoms, it's the on-die GPU that is important, as it slaughters any previous form of integrated graphics. and the lower end of dedicated chips on the market. It's an impressive amount of grunt from integrated graphics, but I don't see much use for it outside of notebooks, as it's above what users need for hardware video playback and acceleration, which is basically all that happens in the lower end. The higher end is still above what they can produce with this chip, so anyone who needs more grunt is going to be using a dedicated card, anyway. As such, I don't really feel that it fits properly in the current desktop market. Not that it's a bad idea, it's a necessary bridging technology to bring APUs in to replace the CPU.

I think the end-result of an APU is a good idea, even if it doesn't suit me at the moment. The ideal situation is that the "graphics" side of the APU takes over the floating-point operations that the CPU would have to do, but that's a long way off.

If you're looking at a new AMD system, I'd be waiting for about 2 months and seeing how Bulldozer turns out.

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?

Age 30
Male
London
Seen July 1st, 2022
Posted June 12th, 2019
2,389 posts
16.6 Years
I can see this being used for cheaper gaming systems and home/home office computers as well since the graphics is suppoosedly equilivent to mid/high end Radeon 4xxx series cards. Once their APU's advance a bit more I can easily see this chip completely replacing standard integrated graphics within a few years. APU's would be a godsend for laptops/netbooks though.

But yah, im wanting to do a build with this but im planning on waiting a while. No matter how its tested, first gen tech is almost always buggy as hell. That said, AMD is going to use a diffrent socket type for next years chips anyway so I might as well wait until then.

Im kinda suprised that Intel hasn't released a version of this chip yet. (I think I read that they were developing one, but I think it was canceled) Although pretty new stuff, APU's have a lot of potentonal. But, now that I think about it, Intel really isn't the best company to make APU's since they don't make very good GPU's.

Ziraider

ಠ_ಠ Get Down with the Pokemon.

Male
Tiffin, Ohio
Seen November 14th, 2022
Posted December 2nd, 2019
223 posts
14.3 Years
Normally I would support Intel, AMD is an alright brand. I tend to think that Intel is more fit for my PC use in gaming, and multi-tasking. I Know some may say it's all about the name if you look at it from a business standpoint. But Intel is used by most mainstream computers. But proudly I am willing to say I want to buy AMD 6-core processor. Since Intel doesn't really have one that I know of yet. Another thing is that its cheaper then the Intel Core i7.


Pokemon Platinum FC: 1033 2212 6817
Pokemon SoulSliver FC: 0088 4731 5699
Pokemon White FC: 0905 2015 1386

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen

Age 32
Male
Michigan
Seen February 19th, 2023
Posted April 30th, 2021
4,307 posts
14.2 Years
Not exactly. Intel's current top-end CPUs are faster than AMD's at this point in time.

By the way, what are your specs at the moment, twocows? Because anything below an i7 is in AMD territory*. So by your logic, anything slower than the i7 (both generations) counts as below the point of usability, as "AMD is useful if you're not actually using your processor."

Without clouding things up with bias, the fair statement would be that Intel dominates the super-high-end CPU market due to offering faster CPUs than AMD can offer. Sadly, there is actually a very small demographic of the computer-using world that has access to equipment of that level. Below that threshold, neither is better, so Intel and AMD are left to battle out a consumer-preference battle with the same levels of performance, with Intel currently making more sales due to a combination of a well-known name, a massive marketing budget and the halo effect from the top-end.

I'm all for brand loyalty; Intel certainly does have the upper hand at the moment, but suggesting that Intel is undeniably superior at every market segment is the sort of thing that increases the already-high level of miscalculated fear that currently plagues the computer market. Just try not to generalise.


* With exception of the i5-2500s in certain cases. Highly-threaded loads (which best fit the description of "actually using" a CPU to its full potential) allow the Thubans to achieve this, sure. But that's point. The equal raw grunt is clearly there.
It's funny that you say that. According to Tom's Hardware, AMD's "top of the line" is roughly on par with the i5 2300 2.8GHz. However, the i5 2300 costs $180, whilst AMD's equivalent in performance (the Phenom II X6 3.3GHz) costs... $194! The Phenom II x4 955 is roughly equivalent to the i3-2100, and yet it costs $140 to the i3's $125. If you're looking for less performance than an i3, then you start to get into territory that AMD can actually compete in (in other words, territory where Intel doesn't really bother to compete in).

You're operating on outdated information. Intel completely outdid themselves with Sandy Bridge; nothing AMD has out even holds a candle. Even the lowly i3 line completely blows AMD's offerings out of the water.

If Intel is always better, then why does my tricore AMD outpreform my Pentium 2 processor? You can argue age diffrence, but you said it yourself... Intel is always better.
Don't be a smart-mouth. You know what I meant.

Normally I would support Intel, AMD is an alright brand. I tend to think that Intel is more fit for my PC use in gaming, and multi-tasking. I Know some may say it's all about the name if you look at it from a business standpoint. But Intel is used by most mainstream computers. But proudly I am willing to say I want to buy AMD 6-core processor. Since Intel doesn't really have one that I know of yet. Another thing is that its cheaper then the Intel Core i7.
AMD's 6-core processor has horrible performance. Even Intel's midrange line performs better, and it's cheaper. And Intel has 6-core processors, they're just way more expensive (and currently useless to a consumer, as most games and desktop applications are optimized for no more than four cores).
VNs are superior to anime, don't @ me

Archer

NSW, Australia
Seen January 26th, 2020
Posted January 5th, 2020
3,956 posts
16.6 Years
It's funny that you say that. According to Tom's Hardware, AMD's "top of the line" is roughly on par with the i5 2300 2.8GHz. However, the i5 2300 costs $180, whilst AMD's equivalent in performance (the Phenom II X6 3.3GHz) costs... $194!
That's because the 1100T has flagship-tax (paying a lot more than the second place because it's the top) and the 2300 isn't. If you go with the almost identical 1090T, it's cheaper than the i5-2300. Plus, it's not just the CPU. AMD boards are traditionally cheaper for the same specs and features.

Z68X-UD5 is $295 AUD - Intel
990FXA-UD5 is $209 AUD - AMD

Sure, it's a bigger difference in the higher end, but that's a huge difference for what is essentially the same board. Not to mention that the 2300 is locked from overclocking and the 1090T (which will happily do 4.2GHz on a good board) is fully unlocked. Both of these apply to the 955/i3 example.

Don't be a smart-mouth. You know what I meant.
He was probably a little antagonistic about it, but it's because you made two huge generalisations against AMD. Do you still maintain that every AMD processor is entirely useless?

Also, what are your current specs, twocows?

Ziraider

ಠ_ಠ Get Down with the Pokemon.

Male
Tiffin, Ohio
Seen November 14th, 2022
Posted December 2nd, 2019
223 posts
14.3 Years
Originally Posted by Ziraider
Normally I would support Intel, AMD is an alright brand. I tend to think that Intel is more fit for my PC use in gaming, and multi-tasking. I Know some may say it's all about the name if you look at it from a business standpoint. But Intel is used by most mainstream computers. But proudly I am willing to say I want to buy AMD 6-core processor. Since Intel doesn't really have one that I know of yet. Another thing is that its cheaper then the Intel Core i7.
AMD's 6-core processor has horrible performance. Even Intel's midrange line performs better, and it's cheaper. And Intel has 6-core processors, they're just way more expensive (and currently useless to a consumer, as most games and desktop applications are optimized for no more than four cores).
OH, I am really shocked that it would, since on Newegg.com it has over 100 reviews and they are all 75% or more 5 egg rating.


Pokemon Platinum FC: 1033 2212 6817
Pokemon SoulSliver FC: 0088 4731 5699
Pokemon White FC: 0905 2015 1386
Male
Seen April 26th, 2015
Posted June 11th, 2012
70 posts
12.2 Years
However, the i5 2300 costs $180, whilst AMD's equivalent in performance (the Phenom II X6 3.3GHz) costs... $194! The Phenom II x4 955 is roughly equivalent to the i3-2100, and yet it costs $140 to the i3's $125.
Z68X-UD5 is $295 AUD - Intel
990FXA-UD5 is $209 AUD - AMD
Come on guys. Seriously? Au vs U.S.. Believe it or not, they are NOT the same. No, I'm not talking about currency exchange rates. Things are priced differently based on where you are. If you guys are going to talk about which brand is cheaper and whatnot, pick one location.

For example, where I usually live Intel processors tend to be more expensive than AMD counterparts (and by counterparts I mean like high end Intel vs high end AMD). But where I am now, AMD is *gasp* more expensive.

Sure, it's a bigger difference in the higher end, but that's a huge difference for what is essentially the same board. Not to mention that the 2300 is locked from overclocking and the 1090T (which will happily do 4.2GHz on a good board)
Why are you bringing motherboards into argument? As far as I could tell you two were arguing about CPUs strictly. If you want to bring in boards, then why not... RAM? Drive? Cooling? After all, the true performance of the computer depends on not just one component but the entire build.

OH, I am really shocked that it would, since on Newegg.com it has over 100 reviews and they are all 75% or more 5 egg rating.
Try looking into benchmarks if you want a more credible source.

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen

Age 32
Male
Michigan
Seen February 19th, 2023
Posted April 30th, 2021
4,307 posts
14.2 Years
That's because the 1100T has flagship-tax (paying a lot more than the second place because it's the top) and the 2300 isn't. If you go with the almost identical 1090T, it's cheaper than the i5-2300. Plus, it's not just the CPU. AMD boards are traditionally cheaper for the same specs and features.

Z68X-UD5 is $295 AUD - Intel
990FXA-UD5 is $209 AUD - AMD

Sure, it's a bigger difference in the higher end, but that's a huge difference for what is essentially the same board. Not to mention that the 2300 is locked from overclocking and the 1090T (which will happily do 4.2GHz on a good board) is fully unlocked. Both of these apply to the 955/i3 example.


He was probably a little antagonistic about it, but it's because you made two huge generalisations against AMD. Do you still maintain that every AMD processor is entirely useless?
He was taking what I said literally in a situation where my meaning was implied.

I think if you're going to step down on the AMD scale, you need to step down on the Intel scale as well. As for overclocking, I don't take it into account because most people don't and shouldn't do it.

Last generation, AMD was competitive with Intel, but I really think Intel excels both price- and performance-wise with Sandy Bridge. If you're going really low-end like I said before, AMD still wins out over the budget Pentium line.

Also, what are your current specs, twocows?
Still using my mid-2008 computer. Was in the final stages of getting a new computer a few weeks ago, but money's a bit short this year for my final year of uni so I'll be holding off.
VNs are superior to anime, don't @ me