AMD or Intel?

[dragpyre]

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!

 

[Dawn]

Intel. Mainly because AMD doesn't give me reasons to try them.

 

[Zet]

Intel. Mainly because AMD doesn't give me reasons to try them.

This summed up the post of everyone who votes Intel.

 

[Mr. X]

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]

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.

 

[Legobricks]

Desktop: 1.6GHz Intel Celeron E1200
Main laptop: 133MHz Intel Pentium (P54CS ?)

I'm curious to try an AMD processor, and if donavannj is right about their prices then I might just get one when I upgrade my desktop.

 

[JinRazielGames]

I got an AMD Turion64[x2]
It really comforts me for the good res.
I can play high GB games with this.
My Laptop = Hyundai LIBERO HD Computer.
Sounds China? Nope.

 

[Gerri Shin]

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)

 

[Archer]

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.

 

[fire_man]

Also using an Intel Celeron with 2.1 Ghz. It works very nice and I haven't ever had any problems with it.

I run big programs with is too.

 

[TheAppleFreak]

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.

 

[Captain Hobo.]

I use intel, because that is what my computer came which. XD

 

[Archer]

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]

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.

 

[Archer]

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]

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.

 

[docjones2]

I prefer Intel.

I do have amd boxes though, I do give amd massive credit. It just seems to me intel chips are more portable (ie: it's easier to find an intel box than an amd box)

 

[Archer]

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]

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]

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.