|
Intel vs. AMD
|
View this Thread in Original format
| BoRe |
So, which do you prefer?
I was AMD Athlon user and the only thing I can say about is.. BIG NO! It sucks, I've seen another CPU's from AMD they sux badly. I bought a month ago a brand new Intel Core-Duo and I immediately felt the difference.
+1 for intel!
What's your favorite?
(I made a poll here ) |
|
|
| stren |
| the favourite one is the one that is more efficient. I don't have a preference; my first comp was a pentium mmx, now i have an athlon, in a few months i'll change it for an intel |
|
|
| Magnus |
| Intel by far. Just got a Core 2 Quad Q6600 for $260 bucks. AMD just can't compete at that price range with that amount of power. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| Intel's have lead in Dual Core and Quad core systems and for gaming. AMD's are good for the budget minded, but not the power user. They really haven't released much for the power user other than FX series, which really are nothing compared to the "Extreme Editions" of Intel processors, or even their mainstream boards. I do recommend the Q6600. I have a QX6700 and it runs fine. It's a bit faster than the Q6600, more expensive (for the EE edition it costs $850, but they have been replaced by the less expensive Q6700 for about $500). |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| I don't really care what chip it is, I look for the most performance I can get for what I'm willing to spend |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
I don't really care what chip it is, I look for the most performance I can get for what I'm willing to spend |
exactly. |
|
|
| LiquidNitrogen |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
exactly. |
It depends ... there was time when AMD > Intel, but the recent release from Intel are hands down better than AMD's latest offerings.
Before you buy I'd suggest you to read reviews on hardware forums zones. Usually AMD's are cheaper with little poor performance than Intels.
In another 2-3 years you should definitely watch IBM and SUN taking over Intel... |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidNitrogen
It depends ... there was time when AMD > Intel, but the recent release from Intel are hands down better than AMD's latest offerings.
Before you buy I'd suggest you to read reviews on hardware forums zones. Usually AMD's are cheaper with little poor performance than Intels.
In another 2-3 years you should definitely watch IBM and SUN taking over Intel... |
he's not asking for recommendations. he's starting a pointless thread about chipset companies.
they're both great. and of course "it depends", which is what my post said. |
|
|
| Derivative |
Heres a few things to think about.
AMD now has all of its processors on socket AM2 boards. On AM2 you can get the 90nm Athlons and Athlon X2 (single and dual cores) or the 65nm Phenom (tri and quad cores).
When I mention numbers like 90nm and 65nm these are die sizes. Die shrinks usually mean cheaper manufacturing costs, lower power consumption and less heat produced (which in turn means you can often [though not always] clock them higher).
Intel has all of its processors on socket LGA 775 boards. All of them are based on a 65nm process and these are the Core 2 Duo (dual cores) and the Core 2 Quad (quad cores). Intel has started making processors on a smaller die (45nm) so we'll see how that pans out shortly.
The Athlon X2 was originally in direct competition with Intel's Pentium 4 and Pentium D (aka netburst). The Pentium 4 was hot and drew alot of power. It didn't scale well and was generally considered a technological dead end. The Athlon on the other hand drew less power, produced less heat and scaled very well. The Athlons at this point were hands down better processors than the Pentiums. It wasn't even in debate.
Intel rectified the problems with Pentium IV in its successor, Core 2 Duo. The Core 2s produce way less heat than the Athlons and drew very little power. They were noted on launch to have amazing scalability as evidenced by people who managed to overclock their E6600 by about 600 to 800mhz on stock cooling. The Athlon X2 is no competition for the Core 2 Duo at equivilant clock speed.
Intel then released the Core 2 Quad which is essentially the same as the Core 2 Duo but with another 2 cores. Up until recently, AMD did not have anything in direct competition.
Now, AMD has Phenom which is generally regarded as a step up if you own an X2 on AM2 board. But the Phenom quads are generally regarded as being inferior to Intel's C2Q. The Phenoms amongst other things produce more heat and draw more power and AMD has had problems getting them to hit clock speeds that their older X2s can hit which is troubling because this should not be the case.
Both Intel and AMD are working on 45nm processors but Intel will come to market with a model sooner than AMD will.
AMD's 90nm processors have held up remarkably well and they have been ramping up the clock speeds steadily for years. There is a general consensus that AMD has not fully gotten to grips with the 65nm process (see Tech Report's article on Phenom). Intel have really got 65nm in the bag.
At this point if you are in the market to buy a new PC the Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quads are the ones to shoot for.
If you are on a budget the Athlon X2s are still great for the cash. Phenom is a worthwhile upgrade if you are on AM2 and don't want to buy a whole new motherboard but the C2Qs are just better at this point.
I have a socket 939 Athlon X2 and it has served me well for a number of years now. I have no plans to upgrade until this PC dies completely. |
|
|
| Blahzaay |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnus
Intel by far. Just got a Core 2 Quad Q6600 for $260 bucks. AMD just can't compete at that price range with that amount of power. |
I have had the Q6600 for around 8 months now and it s on any AMD out there. I work for a computer company and are installing AMD's every day and even the high end stuff doesn't come close.
Until I bought my Quad Core I was an AMD head my entire life.
I also have the Quad Core overclocked with mad cooling and it's a freaking beast and a half. |
|
|
| r5a |
Right now?
Intel.
Long run, probably still Intel.
Ever since the introduction of the Core 2 Duo's, Intel has taken over completely. AMD's response trying to catch up with releasing a faster XP (6000+ or whatever) failed, and now their current line, Phenom, failed.
Core 2 Duos are just unbeatable in price/performance and not to mention great overclockers.
Look at any review from any "legit" source (Hexus, Aanadetch, HardOCP..) Intel is always coming out on top.
Hold yourself a Core 2 Quad. |
|
|
|
|
